If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Falklands War pt. II?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
It seems the Argies are not too pleased at the British scooping up the massive reserves of oil recently discovered beneath the Falkland Islands...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8518982.stm
Do they dare take it into the next level? Would Britain today jump as quickly and decisively to defend the Falklands? And from the military point of view, with Afghanistan stretching the forces and all, would Britain fare differently in a war?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8518982.stm
Do they dare take it into the next level? Would Britain today jump as quickly and decisively to defend the Falklands? And from the military point of view, with Afghanistan stretching the forces and all, would Britain fare differently in a war?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Thats what I was getting at
They know we have no forces to defend the place with so ....
and do you think the British government wouldn't pull forces out of Afghanistan to defend lands under the British Flag?
You think we'd give them up?
I don't. If it meant pulling out troops from the Afganistan then that would happen. A war in defense of a UK territory (especially one with oil) is a higher priority for both the government and public. There'd certainly be more support for it from the public.
The Argies know that and that's why it wont happen, they'd lose, again.
I am sorry but I disagree, if it came down to it the Army, Navy and Air force and mobilize very quickly, Especially if it was British Citizens lives at risk.
At the first sign of trouble or Argie forces mobalizing we'd have the RAF presence in the falklands airborn within minutes, RAF Mount Pleasant provides tactical overwatch for the area, admittedly they are only equipped with a few Euro's and a V10 and even some hercy birds I believe. but along with 500 troops garrisoned with will mount a decent defence for reinforcements,
Then lets not forget about the Edinburgh and Clyde based out of Mare harbour and the multiple Swiftsure and Trafalgar subs in the region which also carry Tomahawks.
If needs be long range bombers can be called in from the america's on short notice and I'm sure the yanks would help out, they owe us enough.
The British Goverment know the importance of the Falklands, They know they need to keep a strong presence there.
Given the defences in place I think you mean the Argentinians couldn't take them in the first place.
:yes: Unless they deployed EVERY thing...
On top of the masses of troops that are there allready.
Whilst I agree with you on most of what you said this part I kind of don't
There aren't really Masses of troops in the falklands, Quite a few but not masses,
500 infantry, 4 euro fighters, 1 VC10 and 1 Herky bird, 3 Seakings, 1 Type 42 Destroyer, 1 River Class Patrol Vessel with a Classified number of Swiftsure and Trafalgar class attack submarines
oh and the Falkland Volunteer Defence Force
If the Argentinians are planning anything more than a small hit and run raid it'll be apparent that they're invading. They haven't got enough airlift capability to get loads of men to the Falklands by air - so it'll be a pretty small force and even that will have been pretty whittled down, the fighter escorts are at the edge of their endurance and it doesn't take much to down a transport. Any airlanding will be pretty battered and the inf will only need to hold them far enough away from airbase long enough to allow reinforcements to land.
And any seaborne reinforcements will get shattered. I mean the RAF may prefer five star hotels, but if forced they'll get out of bed before breakfast and sink any ships getting near. You probably wouldn't even need to take significant assets from Afghanistan.
Of course the Argentinians know this and anything they do is just sabre rattling.
The only other significant deployment is an Armoured division in Germany which will have about 20,000 troops in it. That leaves a huge number of active troops that are able to deploy, not forgetting the garrison on the islands which numbers approx 500 troops, their associated equipment and the RAF base that is there, none of which was there in 1982.
The Argentine army in comparison numbers 41,000. Their navy consists of 4 destroyers and 8 frigates and crucially for assaults on coastal areas, 1 landing assault ship.
The Royal navy in comparison consists of 12 submarines, 3 carriers, 1 helicopter carrier, 2 Albion amphibious assault ships (capable of carrying 6 main battle tanks or 30 APCs, 1000 troops), 4 Bay Class Landing ships (500 troops and upto 32 main battle tanks/150 trucks/APCs) 7 destroyers and 17 Frigates. In terms of numbers and tonnage the Royal Navy is the 3rd largest in the world and is one of the only Blue water navies remaining, along with the USA, Russia and France. The UK is one of the only nations able to conduct long term, full scale warfare away from it's own shores, and can do so quickly. This time around we'd also have the capability of bombarding the Argentinians themselves, and I expect public support for the invasion of a tiny, foreign owned island would dwindle when bombs start falling on their heads.
The important thing to remember is that the Falklands were undefended last time around, this time they aren't. 500 troops may not sound a lot, but when defending against a small number of landing craft (which is all the enemy would have) it's more than ample.
Not that it makes a big difference, I just remember being told a few years ago.
As everyone else has said it probably wont happen.. lets just hope that it doesn't. It's so stupid in the 21st century to be dying over a freezing miniature version of wales in the south atlantic.
but they wouldn't be, they'd be dying over black gold...
also, which army? the British of the Argies?
Still, we can hope for the best. It seems to me that it's always when things get desperate like in a recession / difficult political times that people start fighting like this.
Hmmm from what I find, and I know you dont care about exact figures but..
Army
150,240 Active personel
206,670 Reserve personel,
Navy
42,600 active personnel
38,510 reserve personel
Air Force
46,800 active personnel
83,430 reserve personel
that equals to 568,250 (I know you said no exact figures) but that IS A LOT of manpower, obviously not every one of those are fighting men but they would have all had basic training and are willing to fight. add onto the equipment and wow.. you have a big army, not the largest but one of the deadilest.
I think what the first falklands conflict showed though was how the international community was on our side. America was the notable exception in being useless, but France hacked Argentinas defence systems to tell us where all their ships were
I think if anything the international support we have is more important now than ever.
I have to say though, France really only helped as it was their missiles used on our ships, the Exocet, although saying that Britian bought the entire suply of Exocets after the falklands, so france came out of it quite good.
I don't seem to come off as pushy or anything and im not argueing with you, I agree with you completely but I have good friends in the forces and I'm very pasionate about them.
Agreed, and when your army is equipped with tanks that have armour that can only be defeated by another British tank and fighter jets that are generations ahead of anything the Argentinians can muster and ships that can destroy other ships before they can even be seen on radar, surely they must see this? Or at least read Jane's defence review or something lol.
Why?
Shouldn't that population have the right to self determination? Why does the location matter, if you want to continue the link with Wales - we would defend Wales and the same rules should apply to any other UK domain.
Taking my comments too seriously there MoK.
Of course they do, I just think its unfortunate that even in the year 2010 silly wars over territorial conflicts are still being fought. There is a very real human cost to it all as I'm sure you are very aware of.
If you'd said Scotland then I'd understand...
Ah, now you hit one of the real issues we face, the one where we assume we are "developed" to an extent where we can talk through our problems. Never gonna happen. Didn't in the past, doesn't now and won't in the future. Someone will always be prepared to use force to get their way - that can be financial force (through sanctions) or it could be military force. Either way lives get lost.
They do. Its sabre rattling in Argentina and a slow news day in the UK
I think it's been pretty clearly shown that you can conduct military operations despite being bankrupt.
have you looked at the Argentianian economy recently?
And we're a long way from bankrupt...