I don't think it's entirely fair to say that the UK got lucky by winning back the Falklands last time, merely that we were lucky to not lose more troops & ships than we did. It could have been a lot more difficult but for the help that the US gave us both politically and logistically, *that* made a big difference. But I don't underestimate the commitment & ability of the Argentine forces either, lets not forget that despite our own military personnel experience (at that time mostly in low-intensity conflict & FIBUA, not open warfare), they entered that conflict, and gulf 1, with a lot of gaffer tape, string & equipment dating back to the 50s. we still have a lot of that now. I think you'd find in the unlikely event that Argentina elected to get their forces into a full state of readiness and actually launched an attack, the US would indeed get more actively involved, because this time we'd have to present them with some alternatives they would not like. All else aside, there's been rather a lot of PR in the US regarding Britain standing alongside the US since the first gulf war - whether or not the British public are comfortable with the apparent nature of it, and I suspect there would be a greater appetite from the US public to step up. In case nobody noticed, there's almost certainly a new conflict gaining momentum in the gulf right now, and the US are actually relying quite heavily on the British presence there. If we were forced to reduce our commitment to the coalition in order to address a problem in the south atlantic, it would cause untold delays in the middle-east conflicts & probably also an unnecessary additional increase to the loss of life from that coalition in it's current & future commitments. Some of these WW2 comments are just laughable, by the way.
Your grandparents weren't Jewish, I take it? Although I do not disagree with the main line of your argument, let's not forget that Hitler had big plans for Europe and the world. Most of those plans did not involve ethnic minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, homosexuals or, for that matter, intellectuals and scientists with a dissenting opinion (or they did, but only the final solution kind of plans). If you want a picture of what Hitler World™ would have looked like, think of Stalinist Russia --but on all five continents. On the other hand, the US has shown no sense of honour thus far (And although Landy_Ed's comments make sense, the US has shown no sense either), and the UK no balls to take a stand against the US. Do you think Argentina wouldn't? It is part of the Mercosur (the South American version of the EU). The other members are Full members Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, and lately, Venezuela. Venuzuela and the US have a rocky relationship at the moment and that this conflict is about oil. We also know that in their eyes the UK will be seen as one of the US' henchmen. It is not the first time that whole blocks of countries have polarised against the West.
Argentina might, but no nation other than maybe Venezuela would be stupid enough to jump in against the EU + NATO. Quite simply, no matter where it is in the world, in a conventional conflict even the entirety of South America would get it's ass handed to it by the UK and US alone.
Brazil for a start wouldn't join with Argentina. First of all, the two countries don't exactly see eye to eye. There has been decades of border disputes with Argentina slowly building homes to move the Brazil border further back among other disputes. Not to mention Brazil recieves a heavy dose of aid from America along with Columbia and Mexico to prevent/reduce drugs trafficking. This aid includes money, weapons, training, equipment etc.
In a conventional conflict. Let's hope Argentina doesn't think outside that box then. The US and UK certainly aren't able to, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are showing.
This has all been going on for ages there's nothing new here. We know there is a **** load of oil there and other resources. I always thought it was a nature reserve and we weren't going to drill. But i do know we did test drilling and gas burning. After the war when Argentina signed the peace contract the way it was worded said they would not give up there claim to the islands. Argentina response to the peace treaty lol "Note to State Department The Argentine Government, in the light of the position stated in the aforementioned proposed agreement, which reflects the reasonableness which has continuously inspired its negotiating behaviour, deeply regrets that the peace efforts carried out by the United Nations Secretary-General, in which pursuance and final success the Argentine Republic trusted, have been frustrated as a result of the unilateral decision of the British Government announced on 20 May. The real possibilities of reaching a peaceful settlement to the conflict and of avoiding, with the responsibility that the situation demanded, further bloodshed and an imminent breaking of peace and security in the hemisphere, finally proved to be disregarded by the intransigence and stubbornness with which the Government of the United Kingdom has tried to make the use of force prevail over reason and peace. The Government of the Argentine Republic, therefore, formally holds the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland responsible for the serious consequences which in the future may stem from its denial to exhaust the available means towards a peaceful settlement, and expressly reserves its rights to a legitimate defence recognised by the United Nations Charter. The Embassy of the Argentine Republic avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Department of State the assurances of its highest consideration."
They don't really have the right situation to properly think "outside of the box" Nexxo, as you should know. I'm sure you're well aware that insurgencies depend heavily on local support and resources, whether willingly given or not. Many afghans support the Taleban, or at least fear them enough and distrust the NATO forces enough to not outright oppose them. That wouldn't happen on the Falklands. It's a fairly small island chain which has a highly supportive British population. The terrain doesn't lend itself to guerilla warfare, and the Argentines are almost certainly not trained for it. If they want to take and hold the Falklands as Argentinian territory they can't fight some prolonged guerilla war. Their own population would demand they hold the islands, and Britain could do serious damage to Argentina's economic and military assets based on the mainland if required. Quite simply, conflict from the Argentinians would be a massive mistake, it would be a repeat of the first conflict only worse for them - because they have international respect and accountability to lose right now, and they had very little then. Just because the Argentinians are taught at school that of course the Falklands should be theirs (because...well....we're reasonably close to them....) doesn't make it so. I think the Irish have been trying to disprove that point for around 100 years. However the residents of the Falklands, who've been there for somewhere around the region of 130 years undisturbed (barring the conflict) want to remain part of the United Kingdom, and as such the case is closed. We have the might to protect them, it is correct that we should protect them, and they (the islanders) are the ones with the right to decide on the status of the Falklands. If Argentina does actually decide (stupidly) to do something militarily, the UK should counter it fully and strongly, perhaps with some retribution this time.
?? Whats that based on ?? Remember the armed forces have to abide by the local rules of engagement and the Geneva Convention. This doesn't leave a lot of room for "thinking outside the box", no mater what you would like to do your hands are effectively tied. Yes even wars have rules too. Just because the terrorist doesn't have to abide,that doesn't give us the right too.
Nexxo: Zero to nuclear armageddon in 3.5 posts Is there any chance that this is just more pompous posturing by the arrogant ass that is Maradona?
My point exactly: as a result of this small but important principle we are getting our asses handed to us. We went in thinking along the lines of a conventional war: we have more, bigger and fancier weapons; they are a bunch of Afghani goat herd peasants with worn-out AK-47's and delusions of relevance, and a disorganised, under-equiped Iraqi army whose asses we last stamped into the dust back in 1991. That'll be a breeze: we'll hit them with shock and awe tactics and the whole thing will be over in six months. Except that we're still there, and still taking casualties. As cpemma once said; don't expect the enemy to play by the same rules if it does not have the same resources. We saw this in Korea and Vietnam; we saw that in South America. Guerrilla warfare is a completely different ballgame; if you don't know how to play it, it is better not to challenge the experts to a match. ROFLes. But I was thinking more along the lines of guerrilla tactics and sabotage. The French get this. When nuking Moruroa for kicks they discovered that fancy destroyers and missiles were of little use against Greenpeace's PR campaign of passive resistance with dhingy's and yachts. What are you going to do: blow them out of the water on international TV? So instead they did a little thinking outside the box and sent French secret agents to blow up the Rainbow Warrior. It was terrorism, pure and simple, but it worked --for a while. However the local New Zealand population, being rather pissed-off with this act, did a bit of thinking out of the box itself. In the wake of the bombing, a flotilla of private New Zealand yachts sailed to Muroroa to protest against the French test. Further testing had to be halted as a result. Posturing or no, there are ways and means to make things happen in which superior firepower is not an advantage. Iraq and Afghanistan should have taught us that. It is time to start boasting less about how the UK would kick Argentina's ass again, and start thinking about what Argentina might have learned from that episode and how it might try to go about it this time. It never does to underestimate the enemy.
This talk about guerilla tactics and the like are all well and good in large, populated lands (so the guerilla can fade into the population or the jungle or similar) where the only objective is to keep a toehold on your own land so the invading enemy is on their toes all the time. That doesn't work on the Falklands. They're not Argentina's home territory (whatever they'd like to claim) and they don't have the support of the local population. There's nowhere on the islands to fade into in any number and it's not their land they're trying to keep ahold of, they're trying to invade. Now, commando tactics - sneaking into Mount Pleasant to blow up the Eurofighters on the ground etc - I can see, but I'd really like someone to point me to a successful invasion rather than a resistance that was carried out by guerilla tactics. You cannot 'hold' a position as a guerilla because the entire point is that as soon as you stay anywhere long enough to be noticed the reigning army comes round and turns you into meat pizza. Sabotage is all well and good but don't you think the sudden explosion of all of the Eurofighters/the radar installations is going to alert the British high command, who will turn to the capital ship we keep in the area and the 500-man garrison to keep the islands defended whilst we send some more and a submarine to go with it? The sad fact is that there isn't very much on the Falklands to sabotage. Yes, guerilla warfare is difficult to combat and yes, anyone with half a brain foresaw that in Afghanistan (site of Britain's bloodiest battles for some decades) and Iraq, where the local population is a) not British and b) hostile towards Westerners. But I fail to see how Argentina could conduct a guerilla war on the Falklands. Examples?
Your perception of war know might not have been that different from wars fought in the past, old civilizations fought over land, slaves and what not. when borders are defined and your lands resources are low its inevitable that countries go to war for more.
This. The Falklands is completely different to Afghanistan, defending your own land against an invasion from a government is completely different to fighting rebel extremists who can defuse into a population. Getting past Iraq's army was easy, but when the government changed helping defend the new regime was another task. If war ever broke out again against Argentina, we would be fighting a country not some rebels, which means the level of force can be much greater, and much easier to concentrate. Because of on going commitments in the middle east I'm sure any conflict regarding the Falklands would need to be very strong and very fast, something similar to what Israel did to Lebanon when it gave Hezbollah a seeing to a few years back. Their Navy was outdated last time, now it's practicaly ancient compared to ours. Added into it our level of surveillance; we would know the locations of every one of there ships and infantry units, they would be sitting ducks for cruise missiles. I really hope the have the sense to back off a little.
And we all know how it damaged Israel's image when it did, because a lot of civilians got caught up in the exchange. The Hez don't do conventional war... I'm not sure whether Argentina would follow through, or how. All I know is that being overconfident based on one's superior firepower has, in the recent past, proved to be a big mistake. It is possible that Argentina has been learning from its past mistakes too.
Argentina have NOTHING going from them. They don't have the military. They don't have the economy. They don't have the legal or moral rights to the islands. They don't have any allies (agitating Venezuelans ain't enough). They don't have enough domestic support (sabre-rattling is sometimes good for a bit of pride, but they enough bodies to uncover in their own country without having any more). As much as you would love there to be some issue here, there isn't.
I would agree with you on that, except on the "legal or moral rights". That never stopped anybody. All the other factors may.
Uh... Venezuela is over 5,000 nautical miles from the Falklands - the UK is over 1,000 NM closer to Venezuela than the Falklands. The distances involved are so huge that they are essentially helpless without an expeditionary navy - with the only countries with one of these being the US, UK, France and to a lesser extent Russia.
Yep yo summed it up. Main one being they have basically no military, and it is well known what little equipment they have does not work correctly as no one is willing to pull a France and sell them more weapons
To be fair to France, they sold them the weapons long before the war, but when the conflict started, they held back numerous orders to countries that Argentina might trade with (Peru in particular) and they helped MI6 frustrate Argentinian attempts to buy Exocet missles and Super Etendard spare parts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1387576/How-France-helped-us-win-Falklands-war-by-John-Nott.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War
IIRC, we bought up loads of those Exocets on the international arms market too to stop the Argentines getting their mitts on them. What did we do with them after that? We never adopted them, did we?
