Split Thread Musings about Falklands past and present

[abaddon]

Really? The desire of the inhabitants to remain british has no bearing? Don't suppose there is any evidence? (As opposed to the other view, which is backed up by the Falkland isles argy bargy )

Edited by Darat: 

Musings on Gilbrator left snipped to produce this thread

Split from: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=318279

Posted By: Darat

As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes. Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side. But no. Great Britain had to swing it's military might to prove it still had an empire and still ruled the waves.

Were it to happen today (and Argentina is making noises in that direction) the formerly Great Britain could do nothing about it. Decades of governmental evisceration of the armed services has rendered Britain impotent. The only thing which saved Britain's butt in the Falklands were aircraft carriers, now you have none. By choice.

If I were Argentina, I would grab Los Malvinos right now, because there is nothing the UK could do about it. The new QE class carrier is not going to be in service before 2020 at best. And there are only two of them. And they have no aircraft.

 

[Information Analyst]

As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes. Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side. But no. Great Britain had to swing it's military might to prove it still had an empire and still ruled the waves.

I seem to recall something at the time about not wanting the Islanders to fall under the control of an Argentinian regime well-known for human rights abuses and "disappearing" it's own citizens.

Were it to happen today (and Argentina is making noises in that direction) the formerly Great Britain could do nothing about it. Decades of governmental evisceration of the armed services has rendered Britain impotent. The only thing which saved Britain's butt in the Falklands were aircraft carriers, now you have none. By choice.

If I were Argentina, I would grab Los Malvinos right now, because there is nothing the UK could do about it. The new QE class carrier is not going to be in service before 2020 at best. And there are only two of them. And they have no aircraft.

I think you'll find that it is Argentina that can do absolutely nothing about it. Their navy is far less capable than it was in 1982, and their air force not much better. They simply do not have the naval assets to assemble even a pale imitation of the 1982 invasion force, while the Eurofighters stationed on the Falkland Islands would obliterate any Argentine aircraft foolish enough to come within their range.

 

[abaddon]

I seem to recall something at the time about not wanting the Islanders to fall under the control of Argentinian regime well-known for human rights abuses and "disappearing" it's own citizens.



I think you'll find that it is Argentina that can do absolutely nothing about it. Their navy is far less capable than it was in 1982, and their air force not much better. They simply do not have the naval assets to assemble even a pale imitation of the 1982 invasion force, while the Eurofighters stationed on the Falkland Islands would obliterate any Argentine aircraft foolish enough to come within their range.

The Argies don't need a navy. The UK doesn't have one either.

 

[Information Analyst]

The Argies don't need a navy. The UK doesn't have one either.

There seems to be a huge gulf between what you seem to want to believe and reality. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you think Argentina can take possession of the Falklands in the face of the superior British military assets already stationed on the Islands?

 

[abaddon]

There seems to be a huge gulf between what you seem to want to believe and reality. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how you think Argentina can take possession of the Falklands in the face of the superior British military assets already stationed on the Islands?

1200 troops and three ships. Big deal. Oh and four fighter/attack aircraft which are mostly grounded. The argies could wipe that out without much effort if they had the will to do so.

And be under no illusion. I consider what has been done to the RN/RAF/British Army to be borderline criminal. The British Armed Forces achieved what they did in the eighties in the face of extreme adversity. They could not do so today. Successive governments have ensured that. They are simply easy targets for cutbacks.

 

[Seismosaurus]

As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes.

Perhaps. And when a person is murdered or raped, it would probably be cheaper to just shrug it off and let them get on with their life, too.

But thankfully there are situations where money really isn't the point, and that was one.

Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side.

Nobody did die in pointless battles.

Were it to happen today (and Argentina is making noises in that direction)

Fortunately for everyone, making noises is really all Argentina is capable of when it comes to military action towards the Falklands. They're not capable of invading the islands.

the formerly Great Britain could do nothing about it. Decades of governmental evisceration of the armed services has rendered Britain impotent. The only thing which saved Britain's butt in the Falklands were aircraft carriers, now you have none. By choice.

For now, true. Won't be true in another few years, though.

If I were Argentina, I would grab Los Malvinos right now, because there is nothing the UK could do about it.

If you were Argentina you wouldn't be able to grab "Los Malvinos" right now. It's not 1982, and the Islands are far, far better defended and far, far easier to rapidly reinforce. Any Argentine attempt to seize the islands would fail. Badly.

 

[abaddon]

Perhaps. And when a person is murdered or raped, it would probably be cheaper to just shrug it off and let them get on with their life, too.

Thanks for the hysterical hyperbole.

But thankfully there are situations where money really isn't the point, and that was one.

It really wasn't

Nobody did die in pointless battles.

Really?

[IMGw=640]http://www.vulcantothesky.org/uploads/images/FLDSMEMORIAL.jpg[/IMGw]

I suppose the long march to death at Goose Green didn't happen either. The Royal Marines didn't get shafted by their own government's ineptitude. Sure.

When the logistics failed to turn up because the UKgov didn't bother to provide it, those hard bastards in green yomped it on foot, made it, and achieved their objectives at cost. For some reason, UKians want to trivialise that and I don't know why.

Fortunately for everyone, making noises is really all Argentina is capable of when it comes to military action towards the Falklands. They're not capable of invading the islands.

Oh yes they are, and the UK mil. presence there is trivial.

For now, true. Won't be true in another few years, though.

Too little, too late.

If you were Argentina you wouldn't be able to grab "Los Malvinos" right now. It's not 1982, and the Islands are far, far better defended and far, far easier to rapidly reinforce. Any Argentine attempt to seize the islands would fail. Badly.

And you will be resurrecting the EIC when now?

 

[ddt]

As for the Falklands, it would have been far cheaper to transplant those residents to the Shetlands and build them new homes.

You could probably throw in money for the resurrection of the Great Auk as well so they'd feel better at home.

Nobody would die in pointless battle on either side. But no. Great Britain had to swing it's military might to prove it still had an empire and still ruled the waves.

As I remember it, Maggie ignored intelligence that Argentina was making moves on the Falklands, and then used the war to secure another election victory.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
As I remember it, Maggie ignored intelligence that Argentina was making moves on the Falklands, and then used the war to secure another election victory.

Not really, yes there was intelligence but the top tiers of the UK Government and government did not think they would actually invade. And whilst it did turn Thatcher from being a very unpopular PM likely to be ousted at the next general election it was not a calculated decision to secure a victory in the next general election. That's pretty much an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

 

[abaddon]

Not really, yes there was intelligence but the top tiers of the UK Government and government did not think they would actually invade. And whilst it did turn Thatcher from being a very unpopular PM likely to be ousted at the next general election it was not a calculated decision to secure a victory in the next general election. That's pretty much an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

As far as I know, all correct. Sure, Maggie made hay while that sun shone, that's what politicians do. But some overarching politico-military conspiracy is quite the stretch. Some while ago, I saw various generals interviewed. They made it quite clear how close they were flirting with disaster.

 

[ddt]

Not really, yes there was intelligence but the top tiers of the UK Government and government did not think they would actually invade. And whilst it did turn Thatcher from being a very unpopular PM likely to be ousted at the next general election it was not a calculated decision to secure a victory in the next general election. That's pretty much an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory.

Sorry if my wording was a bit suggestive, but it was not my intention to present it as a LIHOP-style CT.

 

[Information Analyst]

1200 troops and three ships. Big deal. Oh and four fighter/attack aircraft which are mostly grounded. The argies could wipe that out without much effort if they had the will to do so.

With what?

 

[theprestige]

With what?

That's what I've been trying to figure out. The Argentine navy is in pitiful condition. Their two submarines are laid up. They have maybe one real amphibious assault ship. Their four "destroyers" would be classed as light frigates by most other modern navies.

Their air force is similarly sad. Whatever attack planes they sent would be operating near the limits of their range, giving them little time on target and little fuel to spare for maneuvers.

And they'd have to maneuver. The Falklands garrison now includes a Type 45 destroyer. This is a potent, modern air defense platform. Even if the RAF remained entirely out of the fight, the Type 45 by itself guarantees that the outdated Argentine planes would never be able to achieve air superiority.

The weak Argentine naval surface force, consisting of a handful of clapped-out frigates and corvettes, and escorting their troop transport, would have to face off against the Type 45, an RN frigate, and probably one or more RN submarines. Assuming any Argentine ground troops made it ashore, they'd be confronted by a well-equipped, well-prepared, and well-entrenched enemy force.

The Argentine troops would be stranded ashore, with no air support, no naval fire support, and no hope of resupply or reinforcement. With every passing day, their situation would worsen, and RN and RAF reinforcements would draw closer.

Unless abaddon has a vastly different and better-documented assessment of current Argentine military strength, I don't see how they could today take the 1982-strength Falklands, let alone the 2017-strength Falklands.

 

[Garrison]

Ah yes the Argentinians attacking the Falklands, it would be 1982 all over again, mainly as that is the age of most of the ships and aircraft in Argentina's military. The ship that led the force met a ridiculous fate:

Argentina: Destroyer sinks at port

 

[theprestige]

Ah yes the Argentinians attacking the Falklands, it would be 1982 all over again, mainly as that is the age of most of the ships and aircraft in Argentina's military. The ship that led the force met a ridiculous fate:

Argentina: Destroyer sinks at port

The good news is, Argentina commissioned four new "destroyers" after the Falklands war. The bad news is, all of these are laid up due to lack of maintenance and training. On top of that, apparently their armaments are expired, so they don't even have anything to shoot.

I am more curious than ever to find out the source of abaddon's extreme confidence in Argentina's armed forces.

 

[Garrison]

The good news is, Argentina commissioned four new "destroyers" after the Falklands war. The bad news is, all of these are laid up due to lack of maintenance and training. On top of that, apparently their armaments are expired, so they don't even have anything to shoot.

I am more curious than ever to find out the source of abaddon's extreme confidence in Argentina's armed forces.

Yeah it seems the 'weakness' of the Royal Navy renders the Falklands indefensible in the face of a practically non-existent Argentine navy, somehow.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah it seems the 'weakness' of the Royal Navy renders the Falklands indefensible in the face of a practically non-existent Argentine navy, somehow.

Hell, I bet that Type 45 could probably secure the Falklands all by itself.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Thanks for the hysterical hyperbole.

Hysterical hyperbole deserves to be met with the same.

Really?

Yes, really.

I suppose the long march to death at Goose Green didn't happen either. The Royal Marines didn't get shafted by their own government's ineptitude. Sure.

When the logistics failed to turn up because the UKgov didn't bother to provide it, those hard bastards in green yomped it on foot, made it, and achieved their objectives at cost. For some reason, UKians want to trivialise that and I don't know why.

I'm missing the relevance of any of that.

Oh yes they are, and the UK mil. presence there is trivial.

Oh no they're not, and oh no it isn't.

Argentina would struggle to restage an invasion against the 1982 defences today. They have no effective airforce and no effective navy. Those are kind of important for that kind of operation.

Too little, too late.

Another thing you don't understand, it seems.

And you will be resurrecting the EIC when now?

When you bother to learn a few facts. I.e. never.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Hell, I bet that Type 45 could probably secure the Falklands all by itself.

One T45 could probably take down the entire Argentine air force - assuming they have any pilots who are able to fly these days. Hell, in the south Atlantic they probably wouldn't even have to deal with the occasional engine issues they've experienced in hot climates.

An Astute would blitz their navy too - assuming they could get any ships out of port.

Meanwhile there's a full size airport on the island, which would allow reinforcements to be flown in within 24 hours. And that's to reinforce the units already there. In 1982 the total Falklands defence force was about 80 men with rifles. Today there are 1,200 Army troops already there, with surface to air missile batteries. And Typhoon fighters.

There's simply no way the Argentine military as it currently stands could defeat the forces in place. And having hundreds of reinforcements arrive handily would make things even worse for them.

 

[The Don]

One T45 could probably take down the entire Argentine air force - assuming they have any pilots who are able to fly these days. Hell, in the south Atlantic they probably wouldn't even have to deal with the occasional engine issues they've experienced in hot climates.

An Astute would blitz their navy too - assuming they could get any ships out of port.

Meanwhile there's a full size airport on the island, which would allow reinforcements to be flown in within 24 hours. And that's to reinforce the units already there. In 1982 the total Falklands defence force was about 80 men with rifles. Today there are 1,200 Army troops already there, with surface to air missile batteries. And Typhoon fighters.

There's simply no way the Argentine military as it currently stands could defeat the forces in place. And having hundreds of reinforcements arrive handily would make things even worse for them.

I also suspect that detection facilities have been upgraded significantly since the early 80's and so it'd be impossible for an Argentinian invasion force (if one could actually be assembled) to get to the Falklands.

I suppose there could be some kind of scenario where a large Argentinian paratroop force numbering several thousand could somehow evade detection and seize the airport both preventing reinforcement and allowing an airlift of heavier forces but AFAIK they completely lack the ability to launch such an attack.

Unless the Argentine Navy somehow manage to control Falklands territorial waters then anything floaty will end up at the bottom of the South Atlantic and as you pointed out that control hat would also have to include underwater too.