http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Britain-...tail/story.html

Allegedly the 4 fighters stationed to the Falkands are nicknamed Faith, Hope, Charity and Desperation. (A nod to Malta in WW2).

The best time for Argentine Special forces to attack? Late Friday night, early Saturday morning. As anyone who has been to MPA will know (My father was there in mid 80s and a mate who has just left RN, said that it's not altered!)

Good Idea Charlie.

The Guardian is totally correct, it would be virtually impossible to get reinforcements to the island by air in time to defend it, the Falklands is a go-nogo destination which needs careful weather planning (and anyone who knows the Falklands knows its impossible to predict the weather). You get to the half way point and call ahead to check the weather, if its not good you turn back to Ascension Island, if you press on and the weather changes for the worse you have to get it in or you run out of fuel land in the sea, there are no diversions!
Maybe a friendly nation in South America would lend us a runway and some fuel but can you see that happening when we are sitting on their oil?

I actually really enjoyed my time in the Falklands, I was only there for 4 months over Christmas which is their summer in 2000/2001 but had a great time, some amazing wild life to be seen and interesting battlefield tours.
I've been back several times but only for a few days at a time taking down supplies or the occasional Tornado F3 in the boot.

Is it worth a second round with the Argies if they decide to invade....

If the locals are willing to pick up weapons, risk their lives and fight for it, then surely we should support them in doing that?
If they just want want to sit back and await a task force to come rolling in so young lads from thousands of miles away can risk their lives over it, then long live Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, your new presidente.

With a career to safeguard he is hardly likely to say "We would be unable to defend them is he?"

How Britian's current military forces compare to 1982:
1982
Armed Forces Personnel: 320,000
Ships: 2 Carriers, 2 Assault ships, 32 Submarines, 15 Destroyers, 46 Frigates, 1 Ice Patrol Ship, 12 Hydrographic survey ships, 15 Patrol ships/craft, 29 Minesweepers and minehunters, 45 Royal Fleet Auxiliary
Aircraft: 400 plus
2013
Armed Forces personnel:160,000
Ships: 0 Carriers, 9 Submarines, 7 Destroyers, 13 Frigates, 2 Assault/Helicopter Carriers, 2 Assault/Command Ships, 3 RFA Landing Ships, 3 Survey ships, 1 Ice Patrol Ship, 4 Patrol Ships, 15 Minehunters, 10 Royal Fleet Auxiliary
Fighter Aircraft: 130

Given the history of Argentina i wouldn't want to "join" a country that is basically bankrupt and will just use the islands to prop up its failing economy and political system.

Oil is the only reason they are interested in the island, the lady on radio 4 suggested that nothing would change for the islanders (dream on).

We have a few other islands in the Atlantic, what would happen if Tunisia/Spain/south Africa etc demanded them instead. What about islands like Tenerife, Lanzerote, gran canaria etc.. A can of worms and the best course of action is self determination.

If Argentinians want to move to FK then they need to suck up big time, something I can't see happening anytime soon.

Reading through the history of the islands, it seems that nobody has any more right to them than anyone else. Britain has maintained them for the longest, but it can't easily be argued that we have a "right" to them, any more than the Argentinians. We've done our share of running residents off the islands, so (as usual) it's not clear cut from that perspective.
Shortly before the war, the UK government was floating the idea internally of ceding sovereignty to Argentina and had legislated to deny Falklands' residents UK citizenship, so it's revisionism to suggest that we have always been 100% committed to keeping the islands British.

Argentina (or its forerunner) has maintained a claim to the islands for as long as they have been settled, (with a bit of a gap before 1941, but pretty constantly), so I don't think it's an issue that can be dismissed as nonsense or without foundation.

I think who would win a military campaign in the near future is entirely speculative; the Argentinians (please note the spelling, ex HM forces!) will be aware that their cause was probably more seriously damaged by their invasion than any other factor.
The current fiery rhetoric is exactly that and unless something very serious takes place, that kind of escalation would be detrimental to both sides. For what it's worth, I think Jimbo is right in that it would be hard to sit by and watch the Islanders being murdered, but would we really go all the way there to fight again if they were simply rounded up and put on a boat to the UK?

It seems to me, as I said originally, that this issue is all about playing to dissatisfied home audiences and minerals and not at all about really caring which flag flies over what may be the closest British territory to Bum-f**k Nowhere

Jim, not sure why you object to the term Argies, it's no different to Brits. Or Turks. Or Aussies. It's a diminutive of their nationality, and is not a derogatory term. There are derogatory terms I could use for them..

The population of the Islands "own" them by right of tenure, have done for some 160 years, and wish to retain their status as a British territory. As an alternative perhaps the FI should cut their ties with the UK, and exist under their own sovereignty. Which would be difficult given their lack of anything worth having. Of course if oil is found off the Islands, the US would be prepared to defend their sovereignty on our behalf...

Despite all of Charlie's dips into the Guardian and Wikipedia I have no doubt that we could hold the islands provided the Government of the time have the balls to re-inforce at the first signs of aggression (there are always signs, the whole premise for the cold war recognised an escalation of tension before an outbreak of hostilities), instead of worrying about world opinion and sitting back in shock when the Islands are invaded.

It was a close run thing for highly trained elite Brit troops to take the islands against a force consisting of a rag bag of poorly trained, led and equipped conscripts. The other way round?

Those elite regiments have been in combat for the past 10 years(ish). It's not a matter of whether we can defend them, but whether we have the political will to. I certainly feel that a mobilisation to defend the FI has far more justification than Tony's foray into Iraq. That doesn't mean it would justify the loss of UK servicemen.

I sincerely hope we do not have a Falklands War 2, that won't be good news for the servicemen and women of either side.

RK, there are some diminutives used as just that, whilst some have developed a pejorative association; in my view that includes "Japs", "Pakis" and "Argies", to name a few.
That's my opinion and you're free to differ from it, but why would you do something knowing it offends someone and it's easily avoidable?

As you say, there are always signs, which explains why old "Pinko" Callaghan sent a nuclear sub down to the south Atlantic in (I think) 1978.
Anyway, I believe the military speculation is a sideshow, until or unless a workable oilfield is discovered, then watch the stakes rise!

For what it's worth, I agree with Jim - and I find 'Brits' offensive, too...

I agree about not wanting a war, but also having spent 3 years in the poor bloody infantry in the mid 80s (as a STAB, I am almost ashamed to say ), I am also a realist. When you say about the signs, some might say the signs are already there.

It is very difficult if not impossible to hold a defensive position if you do not have air supremacy, if not air superiority. IF (and I am being a typical armchair general here), a way could be found to take the 4 fighters out of the equation then I think the infantry on the Falklands would be outnumbered, outgunned and with limited scope for resupply, a surrender would probably be the outcome.

Don't write off the Argentine army too easily, there is the little known Skirmish at Many branch point, where Argentinian Commandos engaged and defeated the SAS. It was a small squad sized affair, and it resulted in the death of a SAS captain and the capture of a trooper. The other two SAS escaped. Admittedly it was a small 4 vs 4 affair. But is little known in the UK.

The Argentinians belonged to 601 Commando Company and also shot down a Harrier.

There is a good (though only short) account of the Argentinian's elite forces war here http://www.britains-smallwars.com/Falklands/David/kent2.html

I think we have touched upon the basic point.

We should respect the inhabitants opinions. The islands have been British for such a long period of time to change now throws open so many questions in terms of sovereignty of other islands in the world.

If the inhabitants want to stay British and we want the use of the island then it is our obligation to make sure we are their to help them if they are threatened.

Deleted

RK, I hope your fury cools and you rejoin the discussion; my aim wasn't needlessly to make you cross, just to think about not using a term that might be offensive. But I did say that you were free to differ and your point about not having gone to war with the Aussies (sorry, Australians) was interesting. Moving off the point somewhat, but I don't find Brit offensive in the least and I can't explain why I think "Argie" is worse than Aussie. Maybe it's not, but it could be because in my mind it's associated with the particularly nasty style of tabloid journalism that brought us "Gotcha" and other gems. The glee with which the red-tops used/abused (and still use) "supporting our boys" as a thin cover for racist thuggery was shameful. I suppose it was a clear example of dehumanising the enemy to make killing them acceptable and it began with calling "them" Argies.
But that really is just my opinion.

Jim,

I just noticed your bit about James Callaghan (aka "Pinko" LOL) and the way he dealt with a threat to the Falklands. Operation Journeyman http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1491073/Secret-Falklands-task-force-revealed.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Journeyman

Interesting quote by David Owen "The foreign secretary at the time David Owen later claimed that if Margaret Thatcher's government had taken similarly quick action five years later, the Argentinians would not have invaded in 1982 leading to the Falklands War."

The British Army now is a quantum leap away from, and indeed a completely different animal from, the British Army of 1982. Then it was a much larger force of cold war troops with a relatively small percentage of infantry, who had trained for a large scale nuclear war that was never expected to be fought, and other than the non-combat of Northern Ireland, none had seen action. The much reduced in numbers force we now have has spent the last 20 years at war, where just about all fight, all the time. Weapons and equipment in 1982 were pretty evenly matched between the UK and Argentina - not so now, as despite what the papers are fond of saying the UK is pretty much at state of the art level for combat troops. And our troops have all been trained for actual war and spent all their time fighting it , a war that has always been thousands of miles away from home bases - the Argentinians ..... not so much.

An interesting argument, however, if you look at the situation in Helmland in 2010/11 then for a "State of the art level for combat troops", then we may need to invest in more infantry.

This article makes for interesting reading http://www.arrse.co.uk/afghanistan/184312-little-america-us-uk-relations-helmand-re-examined.html and is borne out by a friend of mine who is an RSM in 16th Air Assault Brigade and has done two tours of "Gan"

Personally I think our infantry is over stretched and retention rates are alarming.

A couple of other interesting debates http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-n...oes-matter.html

http://www.arrse.co.uk/staff-college-staff-officers/192299-land-component-main-effort-not.html

http://www.arrse.co.uk/falkland-islands-op-corporate/54485-falklands-war-myths.html

http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-n...ds-jackson.html

A well reasoned article on how the Argentinians would struggle to take the FI. http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/reality-of-capturing-falkland-islands.html

Well I don't think the FI are "British" or "Argentinian" they are the Falkland Islands who belong to the current inhabitants.

If you accept that then any invasion by a foreign force requires intervention from the international community. Any invasion would be wrong and any resolution should only come about by political means.