Falklands: Argies to have another go?

[Taffy]

Well, 25th anniversary and all, I felt that this is an appropriate time to throw this into that savage pit known as the 'soap box'. Will the Argentinians try once again to capture the Falkland Islands? There are several recent clues pointing towards another stand-off between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands, but will this result in military conflict? What do you think? Should britian negotiate over the Falkland Islands? Should we give them to Argentina? Or should we defend the islands, as the islanders want us to?

NOTE: please refer to the islands as the 'Falkland Islands', not 'Las Malvinas'. After all, they are officially called the Falkland Islands

 

[Pubic_Warrior]

No one is that stupid. they would get uber pwned if they tried it on this time, n we would defend it no matter what, we own it.

 

[Haven]

Its not the islands that are the issue, its the rich oil/gas reserves in the surrounding ocean and the very rich fisheries in the waters local to the falklands. That is what both countries will be willing to fight for.

 

[Ronin Storm]

I understand the Falklands, as an island, has little more than sheep and seagulls to recommend it (there was some discussion at work that might have had me working there for a week or two... but fortunately that didn't come to fruition).

Are they likely to go toe-to-toe with the UK military again? I'm actually not sure. I've done my reading around the Falklands "War" (no war was declared, according to Wikipedia). The closer the UK allies itself with the US, the more we are likely to be tarred with the same brush of distaste that seems to pervade international opinion these days. As such, one could conceive that the Argentinian Government might find sufficient backing to decide to give it another go. Russia and China are both putting on a good show of being obstructive to US interests and that might extend to the UK too.

Is it likely? No, not really. Is it possible? Sure.

 

[Dragon]

If the people living on those islands want to belong to the UK there can be no discussion about defending the island or not and I can't imagine that Britain will be attacked by a country that is famous for its beef exports ...(allthough I'd like to see Argentina getting pwned by the NATO)

 

[Goreshakh]

The islands belong to us, people on the islands want to be British so i mean Argentina should leave it out they will just get pwned again so....=/

 

[Taffy]

No one is that stupid. they would get uber pwned if they tried it on this time, n we would defend it no matter what, we own it.

But would we? I mean, think of all the troops tied up in the Middle East, and on peacekeeping missions in Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia. Add to that those on missions with the UN and our forces won't add up to as much as you would have thought. Which is worrying. Now would seem a good time for Argentina to strike.

 

[Pubic_Warrior]

But would we? I mean, think of all the troops tied up in the Middle East, and on peacekeeping missions in Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia. Add to that those on missions with the UN and our forces won't add up to as much as you would have thought. Which is worrying. Now would seem a good time for Argentina to strike.

Trust me, we have more soldiers in this England than that are deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

also we have the soldiers that are permently based on the falklands who would fight, now we can have re-enforcements at the falklands in less than 24 hours.

our army is highly more advanced than theirs and our soldiers have the best training in the world,

BRING IT ON!!!!!!

 

[Ronin Storm]

Trust me, we have more soldiers in this England than that are deployed in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mmm, sure, that's true but a whole bunch of those are on post-deployment stand-down (for 6 months?) and yet others may lack the (recent?) training/exercise for deployment in an amphibious warfare scenario. Not to say we can't deploy to the Falklands, just that the presence of troops in the UK doesn't necessarily mean our military is in a ready state.

That said, if necessary the UK would/could call on NATO allies, or just the US, for aid. It'd be galling, but we could do it.

 

[Taffy]

That said, if necessary the UK would/could call on NATO allies, or just the US, for aid. It'd be galling, but we could do it.

I doubt that the US would do much, purely for geograhical reasons. It would bring the fight to close to home. And we all know that the Yanks don't like fighting on their own turf.

We wouldn't get an awful lot of backing in South America either. I mean, what have we done for them? The French wouldn't help us, and neither would the Germans. Which leaves us with the commonwealth to look to. Canada may help, as might Australia, but what are any of the others going to do? They are hardly military superpowers, are they?

The Falklands seem to be a weak spot for us. I mean, all that way from home, with only a moderately sized garrison. I doubt we could get a significant number of reincorcements there quickly enough.

 

[Ronin Storm]

The Falklands seem to be a weak spot for us. I mean, all that way from home, with only a moderately sized garrison. I doubt we could get a significant number of reincorcements there quickly enough.

Skirting about a bit to be on the safe side...

One of the areas that UK MOD is interested in is rapid deployment anywhere in the world. In some cases, this isn't the deployment of a war-fighting capability but, instead, a response to some natural disaster. Other times, it's peacekeeping. Yet other times, it'll be full-on guns and bombs time. But the core of it is to get a group of men and their necessary equipment to the right place really quickly: a 2-3 days quickly.

As a modern military, we deploy highly trained, well equipped soldiers who can use multiple lines of attack to successfully neutralise an enemy, be that information warfare all the way to getting up close and personal.

The point there is that it may not actually be about getting large numbers of troops and tanks to places, just small numbers of the right troops places quickly.

Can we do that? I can't say. But that's our aim, I'm certain.

 

[Pubic_Warrior]

The Falklands seem to be a weak spot for us. I mean, all that way from home, with only a moderately sized garrison. I doubt we could get a significant number of reincorcements there quickly enough.

Its not a weak spot, im sure numourous generals have sat down and spoke about this, if some people on the internet can think of it so can they, thats what they get paid for.

The argies couldnt take another defeat from us, it would make them look even worse , if they did pluck up the balls to try it on, it would be seen days before it happens due to advances in technology so we can put extra forces on the island or simply bomb their forces before they even load onto their landing crafts.

That moderatly sized garrison is enough to hold off any enemy untill additional forces arrive, if we sore argie forces mobilising re-enforcements would be sent there as a precautionary messureso our forces are on the way before argies set foot on the island.

if anything significant did happen one of the carriers we have would be deployed immediatly bringing its planes and its marines.

Mmm, sure, that's true but a whole bunch of those are on post-deployment stand-down (for 6 months?) and yet others may lack the (recent?) training/exercise for deployment in an amphibious warfare scenario. Not to say we can't deploy to the Falklands, just that the presence of troops in the UK doesn't necessarily mean our military is in a ready state.

i think this is total poo, every soldier that leaves basic training is combat ready, phase 2 is where the engineers learn trades etc. basic training teaches the soldier how to fight in total war and some anti terror tactics, every soldier must learn this no matter what they do in the army, i know this because i have done this.

if worse came to worst we would call on the yanks and they would help as it would look bad on them if they dont respond to their allies call for help, also its a perfect film opertunity for them to to over emphasise what they did for us.

 

[Sephiroth]

i honestly doubt the Argies would even bother trying, even if they did manage to take the falklands chances are we'd kick them out one way or another.
Sure they won't be scared when theres a chance they can win but by the time reinforcements get there they're crapping their pants.

 

[Nanor]

Is there any evidence pointing towards the Argentinians attacking the Falklands again or is this just like saying will Japan attack Turkmenistan?

 

[Taffy]

Is there any evidence pointing towards the Argentinians attacking the Falklands again or is this just like saying will Japan attack Turkmenistan?

There are...rumours...circulating. And the Argies are kicking up about the Falklands again. And the 25th anniversary is upon. And they are holding an election...which is a traditional time to do *something* about the Falklands.

 

[Nanor]

Ahh. Well your points are fair apart from the 25th anniversary one, that's like saying it's 50 years after WW2, let's have another one!

 

[Taffy]

Ahh. Well your points are fair apart from the 25th anniversary one, that's like saying it's 50 years after WW2, let's have another one!

Well, no, because there is no evidence that points towards a country starting another world war. If your going to have another go, the anniversary of your last atempt would seem...appropriate.