Britain would fight another war with Argentina to keep the Falkland Islands

[Capt P.H Young]

To be honest...Argentina cant go 1vs1 against GB.No way,they have obsolate US weapons from 60s.

But,GB is not a military power anymore.
BBC News - Military cuts mean 'no US partnership', Robert Gates warns Britain

First Russians says "GB is just a little island"
Than Chinese "You are not a great power anymore"

Then US-most powerful GB ally -"If you continue to cut your military budget you are not our No.1 ally anymore".

(1) We have always been a little island, since the Ice age. What relevance has this?
(2) No we are not a great power anymore.. do you think we do not know that..
(3) despite being led by donkeys, our military men and women are amongst the finest fighters in any military in the world..
(4) So no US partnership? we could not care a hoot. They will still sell us equipment. There was no partnership with the USA before 1941 and we still held our ground for 2 years before that, even with the mostly obsolete stuff they sold us.
(5) Argentina would last 5 minutes with us.

 

[SQ8]

What exactly is the Falklands worth? Strategic leverage? Against Argentina?Surely doesnt seem to have any economic value..

 

[Cherokee]

What exactly is the Falklands worth? Strategic leverage? Against Argentina?Surely doesnt seem to have any economic value..

Falkland Oil and Gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drilling for oil in the Falklands now punishable with 15 years in jail | UK news | theguardian.com

 

[Capt P.H Young]

What exactly is the Falklands worth? Strategic leverage? Against Argentina?Surely doesnt seem to have any economic value..

What the Islands have is a population who like living there and do not want to be taken over by an alien invader. They simply want to continue tending their sheep and cattle etc as they have done for 9 generations, and live peaceful lives. The oil exploration taking part in the area is recent. In 1982 there were only 68 defenders on the island. They were obviously overrun by a much larger force. That is why there is a larger capability on the Falklands today, to prevent another 1982..

Falkland Oil and Gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Drilling for oil in the Falklands now punishable with 15 years in jail | UK news | theguardian.com

Whos gonna do the punishing? Lol

 

[DejanSRB]

(1) We have always been a little island, since the Ice age. What relevance has this?
(2) No we are not a great power anymore.. do you think we do not know that..
(3) despite being led by donkeys, our military men and women are amongst the finest fighters in any military in the world..
(4) So no US partnership? we could not care a hoot. They will still sell us equipment. There was no partnership with the USA before 1941 and we still held our ground for 2 years before that, even with the mostly obsolete stuff they sold us.
(5) Argentina would last 5 minutes with us.

1) Peskov (guy who said that) doesnt think about geographic size but about relevance on intenational stage.
3) Yes we know that,but this is modern warfare,finest British fighters are good thing but numbers and training are not on the same level as technology.
4)Britain in 1941 and Britain today can't be compared,you know it better than me.
5)As I said they tecnology is 60's US level.

 

[Cherokee]

What the Islands have is a population who like living there and do not want to be taken over by an alien invader. They simply want to continue tending their sheep and cattle etc as they have done for 9 generations, and live peaceful lives. The oil exploration taking part in the area is recent. In 1982 there were only 68 defenders on the island. They were obviously overrun by a much larger force. That is why there is a larger capability on the Falklands today, to prevent another 1982..


Whos gonna do the punishing? Lol

What is the size and firepower of the force on Falklands today ??

 

[Capt P.H Young]

1) Peskov (guy who said that) doesnt think about geographic size but about relevance on intenational stage.
3) Yes we know that,but this is modern warfare,finest British fighters are good thing but numbers and training are not on the same level as technology.
4)Britain in 1941 and Britain today can't be compared,you know it better than me.
5)As I said they tecnology is 60's US level.

Who's technology?

What is the size and firepower of the force on Falklands today ??

Military of the Falkland Islands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DejanSRB]

Argentina military technology.
Just look at their Air Force.

 

[Capt P.H Young]

Argentina military technology.
Just look at their Air Force.

Ok got it, thanks/

 

[SQ8]

What the Islands have is a population who like living there and do not want to be taken over by an alien invader. They simply want to continue tending their sheep and cattle etc as they have done for 9 generations, and live peaceful lives. The oil exploration taking part in the area is recent. In 1982 there were only 68 defenders on the island. They were obviously overrun by a much larger force. That is why there is a larger capability on the Falklands today, to prevent another 1982..

But the potential for exploration was known before that. With that incentive now in play there is much more than just islanders to motivate British intervention. The Islanders were not as such fond of the crown .. as you stated.. preferring to be left alone with their sheep(Christ. they have on their flag!). Regardless.. the Argentinians may not be too happy with a foriegn presence right next to their shores. Considering the losses taken by the British in the first war.. and the current state of the British Naval Air power.. I am not too sure if the 5 minute claim by you has much weight. That being said, the Argentinians arent that well off either and their aerial and naval assets are in no condition to mount any serious offensive or even effective defensive operations.

At best, a tit for tat harassment is what the Argentinians will continue to do and Britain will not be undertaking any offensive operations other than at the diplomatic front anytime soon or at all in my view. The Islanders and their sheep are pretty much out of the equation so your primary concern(if that is the primary focus) is all well.

 

[madmusti]

So Britain as NATO Country will fight with an Major non-NATO ally ?

 

[Capt P.H Young]

But the potential for exploration was known before that. With that incentive now in play there is much more than just islanders to motivate British intervention. The Islanders were not as such fond of the crown .. as you stated.. preferring to be left alone with their sheep(Christ. they have on their flag!). Regardless.. the Argentinians may not be too happy with a foriegn presence right next to their shores. Considering the losses taken by the British in the first war.. and the current state of the British Naval Air power.. I am not too sure if the 5 minute claim by you has much weight. That being said, the Argentinians arent that well off either and their aerial and naval assets are in no condition to mount any serious offensive or even effective defensive operations.

At best, a tit for tat harassment is what the Argentinians will continue to do and Britain will not be undertaking any offensive operations other than at the diplomatic front anytime soon or at all in my view. The Islanders and their sheep are pretty much out of the equation so your primary concern(if that is the primary focus) is all well.

But the potential for exploration was known before that. With that incentive now in play there is much more than just islanders to motivate British intervention. The Islanders were not as such fond of the crown .. as you stated.. preferring to be left alone with their sheep(Christ. they have on their flag!). Regardless.. the Argentinians may not be too happy with a foriegn presence right next to their shores. Considering the losses taken by the British in the first war.. and the current state of the British Naval Air power.. I am not too sure if the 5 minute claim by you has much weight. That being said, the Argentinians arent that well off either and their aerial and naval assets are in no condition to mount any serious offensive or even effective defensive operations.

At best, a tit for tat harassment is what the Argentinians will continue to do and Britain will not be undertaking any offensive operations other than at the diplomatic front anytime soon or at all in my view. The Islanders and their sheep are pretty much out of the equation so your primary concern(if that is the primary focus) is all well.

But up to '82 oil exploration was not the primary concern.. in fact the British government were guilty of shameful complacency (have they not been always) and the message to Galtieri that the Govt of the day were going to withdraw an RN ship from the area (Endurance) sent the signal to the Junta that we would not respond militarily to an Argentine Invasion. Had Michael Foot been in government then the Falklands would possibly now be Argentinian. There was even British moves before the invasion of 82 to at the very least share sovereignty.. all rendered irrelevant by Galtieri and his Junta. And I know that Argentina are not happy with Anglo Saxon presence 300 miles from their shores, but in 1833, when this present 'argument' can be traced to, what was to be recognised as Argentina was 1500 miles away from the Islands. If Argentina had ANY real claim whatsoever I would acknowledge that but the fact is they do not. And Proximity has no basis in international law in this case. As for losses in 82 yes, the First Sea lord said to Margaret Thatcher at the time 'We will lose ships'. We are realist enough to know you cannot fight a war without casualties The end justifies the means.

 

[Asian.Century]

Argentians must take thier rightful Falkands from foreign occupation.