Could Britain still defend / recapture the Falklands? - General

[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] Your avatar is a dick, and you're acting quite like a dick. But yes there are many instances where NATO Won't involve itself because it isn't worth it.

[QUOTE=Auth;35059670]Your avatar is gay.[/QUOTE] I wish you could rate in this section [editline]9th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Auth;35059670]Your avatar is a dick, and you're acting quite like a dick. But yes there are many instances where NATO Won't involve itself because it isn't worth it.[/QUOTE] Awful edit

[QUOTE=OrangeElimin;35059234]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.[/QUOTE] How is the FAL an awful weapon. Have you ever even shot one?

I'm from Argentina, so I will be clear and simple. Our president grew up in a coup d'etat, so they hate the army, being a soldier in Argentina is one of the worst paid jobs, but you are also considered a disgrace. If we have a war with Britain again we wouldn't win. I mean, the Malvinas war(We call them Malvinas, don't care if you call them Farklands, they are Malvinas Argentinas for us) was a disgrace to us. Our country is a insult to what it was before. The poors have childs to get money from the goverment and they win more money than someone who works in a unimportant job. All our cops are lazy and stopping a criminal means a trial to him, and the criminal walking free. We are agaisn't our goverment that get the votes from the poor by gifting them stuff(washer machines, refrigerators, that sort of stuff). Even those people agree with us but they need this stuff, if not they have to work. And using a civilian airliner to transport people? Please, our goverment rent emergency vehicles, using a plane would be imposible. We may have though warriors but that's all we got.

Strategic sheep farming purposes. There truely is nothing of considerable interest for UK to have bat an eye at it so long ago, yet even now.

If Britain can fend off the Argentinean army back in the 1980s, they can surely repel any attacks if Falkland were to be invaded again.

[QUOTE=crackberry;34903475]We already have enough debt. Anyways, the Falklands doesn't have any oil.[/QUOTE] The US does not fight wars for oil, it was proven.

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;35174399]Well, [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9147256/Barack-Obama-backs-Falklands-remaining-British.html]Obama backs the people in the Falklands being 'British'[/url], so the chances are if the Argentinians try to attack, we [may] have a valuable ally to help us if anything truly bad happens.[/QUOTE] Agreed plus most of the Falklanders said they preferred to be a British

[QUOTE=UberMunchkin;35174399]Well, [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9147256/Barack-Obama-backs-Falklands-remaining-British.html]Obama backs the people in the Falklands being 'British'[/url], so the chances are if the Argentinians try to attack, we [may] have a valuable ally to help us if anything truly bad happens.[/QUOTE] he said that falklands "belong" to argentina in june 2011 [url]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100091346/another-slap-in-the-face-for-britain-the-obama-administration-sides-with-argentina-and-venezuela-in-oas-declaration-on-the-falklands/[/url] he's backpedaling HARD.

[QUOTE=BCell;35122479]If Britain can fend off the Argentinean army back in the 1980s, they can surely repel any attacks if Falkland were to be invaded again.[/QUOTE] Our military is considerably smaller now and we have no aircraft carriers now so we'd be relying on foreign support.

[QUOTE=OrangeElimin;35059234]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.[/QUOTE]There's nothing wrong at all with the FAL, the SA80 isn't magically better. Small arms technology hasn't improved massively since the transition from black powder to smokeless. The mechanisms and roles of small arms that are taken for granted have existed for a surprisingly long time. For example, the assault rifle design as we know it existed as early as 1916 as the Federov Avtomat. What has changed is the nature of war, and thus certain types of small arms have come to prominence. Since WW1 there's far more city fighting, where you'd be hard-pressed to find any part of a city where you'd need to shoot anything past 300 metres or so. For that, an assault rifle is king, and thus has become the basic weapon for all soldiers.

I don't see why everyone is so worked up over the carriers. Don't get me wrong, I consider carrier support to be an important part of any invasion, but in the case of the Falklands it would just be an absent luxury. The only thing we would use the aircraft for is CAS - the air superiority role is pretty much made redundant by HMS Dauntless - but we still have helicopters (and a carrier for them) which could fill this role.

US BRITISH ARE YOUR BEST ALLY, YOU HAVE TO HELP US!

[QUOTE=BCell;35122479]If Britain can fend off the Argentinean army back in the 1980s, they can surely repel any attacks if Falkland were to be invaded again.[/QUOTE] Yeah, because the Argentinean army hasn't changed since the 1980's. [editline]17th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;35175826]Our military is considerably smaller now and we have no aircraft carriers now so we'd be relying on foreign support.[/QUOTE] The U.S Navy would step up and lend a hand easily. Funny enough, our Navy has more planes than our Airforce.

[QUOTE=The one that is;35182920]Yeah, because the Argentinean army hasn't changed since the 1980's.[/QUOTE] Well... uh... Actually, it hasn't really. And even if it had, your point would be irrelevant since the British forces have advanced even more in comparison.

[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;35173467][B]The US does not fight wars for oil[/B], it was proven.[/QUOTE] Yes it does. It might not fight it solely for oil, but it is a major part of it's agenda.

[QUOTE=David29;35183053]Well... uh... Actually, it hasn't really. And even if it had, your point would be irrelevant since the British forces have advanced even more in comparison.[/QUOTE] I wasn't being sarcastic. I know it has not, and how is my point irrelevant? My point was that Argentina's military sucks, I don't even know where you're getting this.

[QUOTE=The one that is;35183618]I wasn't being sarcastic. I know it has not, and how is my point irrelevant? My point was that Argentina's military sucks, I don't even know where you're getting this.[/QUOTE] Sorry. My whole post hinged on your post being sarcastic.

[QUOTE=David29;35183757]Sorry. My whole post hinged on your post being sarcastic.[/QUOTE] It's ok.

[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;35182660]There's nothing wrong at all with the FAL, the SA80 isn't magically better. Small arms technology hasn't improved massively since the transition from black powder to smokeless. The mechanisms and roles of small arms that are taken for granted have existed for a surprisingly long time. For example, the assault rifle design as we know it existed as early as 1916 as the Federov Avtomat. What has changed is the nature of war, and thus certain types of small arms have come to prominence. Since WW1 there's far more city fighting, where you'd be hard-pressed to find any part of a city where you'd need to shoot anything past 300 metres or so. For that, an assault rifle is king, and thus has become the basic weapon for all soldiers.[/QUOTE] Good post..one thing I should mention though is that assault rifles...and in particular the M4 are extremely ineffective in the mountains of Afghanistan due to the long ranges of most engagements. In my unit, we rely mostly on our M240L's for engaging the enemy.

[QUOTE=Savyetski79;35244364]Good post..one thing I should mention though is that assault rifles...and in particular the M4 are extremely ineffective in the mountains of Afghanistan due to the long ranges of most engagements. In my unit, we rely mostly on our M240L's for engaging the enemy.[/QUOTE] yup, the old lee-enfield is a better weapon for afghanistan than the modern M4

It would be a joke for Argentina to even attempt it now, my dad was stationed out there after the conflict had come to a close and the UK have been remilitarising the islands ever since. It'd be stupid for argies to even attempt an invasion, the islands are going to be setup exactly for that situation.

How far away from the Falklands is the closest US Navy Carrier Group? How long would it take to get to the Falklands? War end.

Maybe I sound stupid here, I don't know much about the history of it all tbh, but couldn't the UK just sell the Falklands to Argentina? I mean both sides would get something out of it then

[QUOTE=RobbL;35249171]Maybe I sound stupid here, I don't know much about the history of it all tbh, but couldn't the UK just sell the Falklands to Argentina? I mean both sides would get something out of it then[/QUOTE] Not sure about the legality, but it would be going against everything those men died for in the 80's and against the wishes of the inhabitants of the Falklands.

[QUOTE=RobbL;35249171]Maybe I sound stupid here, I don't know much about the history of it all tbh, but couldn't the UK just sell the Falklands to Argentina? I mean both sides would get something out of it then[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with money, the islanders wish to remain British and so we will ensure it is kept that way. If the islanders wanted to be Argentine then we would let them and give the islands up (or so we say)

Britain could probably re-defend the islands, but I really think the Argentinians won't stop until they feel like some of their pride has been restored. A bit similarly like the Israeli-Arab conflicts.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;35244778]yup, the old lee-enfield is a better weapon for afghanistan than the modern M4[/QUOTE] Well..idk about THAT =P I'd be pretty happy if my squad would just let me use one of the company's M-14 EBRs for our next deployment. ANYWAY.