Could Britain still defend / recapture the Falklands? - General

With tensions growing between Britain and Argentina and the 30th anniversary of the war coming up, as well as this article by the BBC [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17157373[/URL] it would be an interesting debate to see if a war broke out today, could / would Britain defend the island, and could they recapture them if they lost them? British presence has massively increased since '82, and so has our technology [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58741000/gif/_58741467_falkland_anniversary_976_2.gif[/IMG] [quote]The Falklands War was 30 years ago. "But in military terms it is 100 years ago," says Clarke. British forces have advanced about 60 years in sophistication, but Argentine forces have barely improved, still using military hardware from the 1970s and 80s. Southby-Tailyour says they no longer have the landing craft to make an amphibious landing possible.[/quote] However the nearest air base is 4,000 miles away, where the planes would need re-fueling mid flight: [quote]There are [B]no aircraft[/B] to protect a task force. RAF Wideawake, the air base on Ascension, in the middle of the Atlantic, is 4,000 miles away. So any fighter planes deployed from there would require mid-air refuelling. Even if a carrier comes into service in 2020, there is no guarantee there will be strike jets to go on them, says Felstead. If the Falklands were invaded again, there would be no way for Britain to take them back.[/quote] There's also the chance that the Argentines would plan a surprise attack using a civilian air liner: [quote]Most military thinkers agree they offer the only credible threat through a [B]surprise attack[/B] on Mt Pleasant. One scenario might be a [B]civilian airliner[/B] packed with special forces to divert to Mt Pleasant, says Colonel Southby-Tailyour. "It would take a very brave politician to shoot down a civilian airliner in cold blood. The Argentine forces are good. They could jump out and shoot everything up."[/quote] The Falklands were invaded because Argentina presumed the island wasn't 'valuable enough' for Britain to care, and thought the islanders would be thankful of their presence, so would they be better prepared knowing we'd retaliate? [IMG]http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/58707000/jpg/_58707510_itswar_getty.jpg[/IMG] I personally think with the British military presence, if there was a surprise attack, it would be stopped a lot sooner. As said in the article too, the military being there is a 'good enough deterrent'

They can be taken, could they be taken with acceptable losses is the question… Once taken can they be held, well that becomes a political question, if the UN votes no, then they can't, if the UN votes yes, they can, if it prevaricates it then rests on how many favors the British can call in.

We could probably defend the islands quite easily as our military forces and equipment far exceeds that of Argentina. But if they managed to take them, I doubt we could retake them without help from our allies. Mainly due to our complete lack of carrier borne fighters.

Britain would have EU support under treaty, so you can count on aircraft carriers coming to assistance, as well as NATO.

The UK forces would have to hold off Argentinians for awhile until a reinforcement fleet could arrive, and air support (vital to the defense of the islands and any modern war effort) would be a serious issue because of Her Majesty's Navy's lack of carriers ([I]Illustrious[/I] was refit for helicopters only). Amphibious Assault craft would be the best bet, and the Royal Navy has a few of them. Transoceanic flights supplemented by refueling class would be the best bet for establishing air superiority. However, once AS is established, the British will once again prove that the Falklands are incapable of being taken. The Royal Navy and Marines/Army could readily deter any ground or overseas incursions. If it comes to it, tactical strikes to take out Argentinian infrastructure could even be utilized (military bases), but I have serious doubts it would ever get that far. [editline]27th February 2012[/editline] This is all assuming NATO/EU/other allied support doesn't come into play, which it certainly should. To summarize: it would be in Argentina's best self preservation interests to stay the fuck out of a conflict and give up already.

Why can't the U.S. just send troops to help out?

[QUOTE=King Tiger;34900694]Why can't the U.S. just send troops to help out?[/QUOTE] Do you really want the United States getting involved in another overseas war, for a conflict that isn't theirs? No? Neither do any politicians with aims of getting reelected. Or the American people. The US will stay out of this, save for material support.

I think someone just needs to slap Argentina and tell them to back off. They have no right claiming the island. It'd be better if the Falklands were willing to claim independence, but they'd probably not have a very strong economy and no direct ties to such a powerful nation.

Man, I just don't know anymore. The UK Armed Forces have been cut to the bone as of late. Force projection is at an all time low. And I'm sure that if this stuff boiled over again, the Argies would go in with a lot more power. I'm talking whole divisions and shit. I don't think the British could pull off a similar operation a second time around. But I have a feeling that if push came to shove, the British would have quite a lot more international support. That Treaty Cameron signed with the French means they would have to back them up right? And the Argentinians don't have the Soviets to give them any intelligence like last time. It'll be a lot closer this time. A lot more bloodshed for some strategically and economically minimal islands with a population that overwhelmingly want's to stay British.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;34900694]Why can't the U.S. just send troops to help out?[/QUOTE] We already have enough debt. Anyways, the Falklands doesn't have any oil.

[QUOTE=crackberry;34903475]We already have enough debt. Anyways, the Falklands doesn't have any oil.[/QUOTE] Actually, the Falklands does have oil. You're just too dense and biased to know these facts. [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6571431.stm[/url] This might help you a bit, 2007 but it's still there.

Britain is one of the most powerful nations in the world and is allied with very powerful nations. They probably wouldn't have a problem if they wanted to.

Lets be honest, the falkland islands are close enough to argentina to be deserving to belong to Argentina's. However the point it that it doesn't, and is british soil so Argentina need to chill out. The only way they'd take the Falklands is if they rushed all their forces at once, because once British reinforcements arrive they are fucked.

[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34911049]Lets be honest, the falkland islands are close enough to argentina to be deserving to belong to Argentina's. [/QUOTE] Does that mean Canada owns New York? Or India owns Sri Lanka? Or that Iceland owns Greenland? Proximity has nothing to do with legal ownership. If it did, my neighbors house would be my weekend getaway.

[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34911049]Lets be honest, the falkland islands are close enough to argentina to be deserving to belong to Argentina's. However the point it that it doesn't, and is british soil so Argentina need to chill out. The only way they'd take the Falklands is if they rushed all their forces at once, because once British reinforcements arrive they are fucked.[/QUOTE] Even then, I'm sure a few regiment guys would be able to easily defend the entire falklands. One air craft carrier has more planes than the entire Argentin military, and they are technologically superior. [editline]28th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=BlazeFresh;34911049]Lets be honest, the falkland islands are close enough to argentina to be deserving to belong to Argentina's. However the point it that it doesn't, and is british soil so Argentina need to chill out. The only way they'd take the Falklands is if they rushed all their forces at once, because once British reinforcements arrive they are fucked.[/QUOTE] Even then, I'm sure a few regiment guys would be able to easily defend the entire falklands. One air craft carrier has more planes than the entire Argentin military, and they are technologically superior.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;34900694]Why can't the U.S. just send troops to help out?[/QUOTE] Because this isn't the U.S.'s war. Then again, NATO would probably step in if Argentina actually did attack the Falklands, and with that the U.S.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;34900694]Why can't the U.S. just send troops to help out?[/QUOTE] You must be new here.

[QUOTE=Fhenexx;34922406] Then again, NATO would probably step in if Argentina actually did attack the Falklands, and with that the U.S.[/QUOTE] This. If Argentina attacks the British Citizens of the Falklands, you can guarantee old man America will be right on their doorstep with a Carrier Group in a matter of days.

A easier questions to ask would be "who has nuclear weapons?" Use the answer you got in that for this question

America didn't help the first time and they wouldn't help this time, but anyway Argentina has no chance of actually taking the island, the type 45 destroyer there would render there air force useless and the 4 typhoon jets would make short work of anything that comes there way. Not to mention there is apparently a nuclear submarine in the area which would stop any sane person in there tracks.

[QUOTE=james0724;34924732]America didn't help the first time and they wouldn't help this time, but anyway Argentina has no chance of actually taking the island, the type 45 destroyer there would render there air force useless and the 4 typhoon jets would make short work of anything that comes there way. Not to mention there is apparently a nuclear submarine in the area which would stop any sane person in there tracks.[/QUOTE] They didn't help the first time because the UK declined their support other than material support. The UK could ask the US and the US would have to oblige because they have signed the NATO treaty. [QUOTE]The United States initially tried to mediate an end to the conflict. However, when Argentina refused the U.S. peace overtures, U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom. An important factor was military support. The USA provided the United Kingdom with military equipment ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. France provided dissimilar aircraft training so Harrier pilots could train against the French aircraft used by Argentina. French and British intelligence also worked to prevent Argentina from obtaining more Exocet missiles on the international market. Chile gave support to Britain in the form of Intelligence about Argentine military and radar early warning.[/QUOTE] [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] As for could we: Defend: Yes, it would take most of the argentinian army to even stand a chance of taking the islands. Retake: We would probably have to borrow some carriers from the US but we could do it pretty easily assuming we accepted support. Should we? I think yes, we have spent a whole load of money on Iraq/Afghanistan, so why not on defending our own territory on citizens.

I would hope that the U.S. would assist in the event of an invasion. I will always be an American soldier but my loyalties tend to stick with the U.K.

Of course they could recapture it. Hell, they could probably defend it this time! Argentina's military is still stuck in the 1970's.

Why would they bother?

[QUOTE=SammySung;35049045]Why would they bother?[/QUOTE] Oh I don't know? Maybe because it's their territory? Hmm?

The UK could bomb Argentina back into the stone age. Argentina is being really fucking stupid trying to start Falklands Conflict 2.0. I hope the UK replies with its entire navy on Argentina's doorstep.

[QUOTE=OrangeElimin;35058329]The UK could bomb Argentina back into the stone age. Argentina is being really fucking stupid trying to start Falklands Conflict 2.0. I hope the UK replies with its entire navy on Argentina's doorstep.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure that if we just gave the Falkland inhabitants a few hunting rifles and handguns they could take on the entire Argentine army. It wouldn't be terribly difficult, any poorly trained and under equipped militia could probably do it.

[QUOTE=The one that is;35058831]I'm pretty sure that if we just gave the Falkland inhabitants a few hunting rifles and handguns they could take on the entire Argentine army. It wouldn't be terribly difficult, any poorly trained and under equipped militia could probably do it.[/QUOTE] Argentina is still using the the FN FAL, the same awful gun they had during Falklands 1. I believe the UK is using an upgraded SA80 (because the original SA80 was excellent despite being really unreliable). And that is just the service rifles. I know the UK still has one of the best navies in the world, and the RAF is a force to be reckoned with. If Argentina still hasn't changed their service rifle, I wouldn't be surprised if the same is true for the airforce/navy. Plus, the UK is in NATO. Is Argentina attacked the Falklands, it could invoke Article 5 and put them against everyone in NATO. Aka assuring their total utter annihilation.

Pardon if I'm wrong but weren't there instances where Article 5 was technically invoked but everyone in NATO didn't get involved?

[QUOTE=Lamar;35059337]Pardon if I'm wrong but weren't there instances where Article 5 was technically invoked but everyone in NATO didn't get involved?[/QUOTE] You are right (I dont think everyone helped with the whole 9/11 thing), but even if they dont get involved military wise, they must sever political/trade connections, and that has happened consistently.