Is England trying to stir the pot over the Falkland Islands?

Current battle ships have automated defense guns and missles as well as offensive missiles that are much easier to aim using the GPS onboard.

Despite the Argentinian claims to what they call the Malvinas, the UK maintains that the Falkland Islands are ours, and as long as the Falklanders themselves wish to reamin British, we will support that.

The recent armed services cuts were mainly due to cost cutting, but also because it has been seen that future wars will mainly be fought as coalitions against a common enemy. Therefore nations do not need an independent deterrent. That means that the UK does not now have the operational capacity to mount a task Force as we did in 1982.

We were caught out 30 years ago by Argentina sneaking in by the back door and invading Georgia. This would not happen today with modern surveillance technologies. Also as alluded to before we have a number of nuclear subs on station all over the world at any one time, and we would be getting there a bit quicker than HMS Conqueror did.

It needs to be remembered that the UK never officially declared war against Argentina in 1982, so the question of whether we would directly attack their mainland either then or now, does not come into it. The Argentinian government is asserting its claim on the Falklands for mainly political reasons to remain popular with their voting population, and to get a slice of the action if any oil is found.

However, notwithstanding all the foregoing, the disagreement between the UK and Argentina over the future of these islands is seen internationally as a private spat, and it is highly unlikly that any other country would want to offer and supply military aid.

I just think that this will rumble on and on, but if one day Argentina ramps this up to include any form of miltary intervention, then they will be very foolhardy to say the least.

Also as alluded to before we have a number of nuclear subs on station all over the world at any one time, and we would be getting there a bit quicker than HMS Conqueror did.

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force?

Argentina does not need to attack by boat.

The USA has a long history of loosing defensive wars of attrition.

Argentina does not need to attack by boat.

Of course not. Machine gun emplacements have been proven to be fairly effective against parachutists.

And how is a sub going to defend against a paratroop force?

By firing torpedoes at the ship launching the landing craft.

Next question ...

Paratroopers parachute landing craft, land in them, then go ashore? Seems an awful lot of effort when they could arachute over land and avoid any possible encounters with torpedoes. I truly did not appreciate how much any oxymoron military intelligence was until now.

The British SAS are quite capable of mounting an amphibious assault, in parallel with an airborne force. So we would be wise to assume that others might do so, of course with less success.

I'm not sure Chris wants to be reminded that islands are sitting ducks

I truly did not appreciate how much any oxymoron military intelligence was until now

You can remind me of anything you like if you wish. The USA ia a very large island come to that.

Until warfare becomes a true technological affair without the need of manpower, to end/win a battle/war, boots will be needed on the ground.

I cannot see the EU or the US aid Britain should the Falklands kick off again & without that aid, Britain, this time around, cannot provide sufficient resources to attack, let alone retake the Falklands.

However, if the potential oilfield/s is large enough, then maybe the US will provide aid (basing this on the "Iraq Affair").
____________

There are three points here, firstly it would be that much more difficult to defend territory in the South Atlantic than it was in 1982. Secondly we were not expecting Argentina to take Georgia then invade the islands. Thirdly and conversely, military technologies have improved in the last 30 years, so we wouldn't need to send up helicopters to drop chaff to confuse missiles etc.

Argentinas forces are most likely carefully monitored in many ways 24/7 and any large scale build up or deployment would be immediately seen, and appropriate action taken. PM Cameron chaired a COBRA meeting before Xmas on this very point and was quoted as saying that he was assured that we had the capability required to deal with it if neccessary.

However it is worrying when senior Military figures disagree Army Head. I would agree that if the islands were invaded again we would have a very difficult job to re-take them, but I don't see it getting that far. Neither do I think that we would consider attacking the mainland, in that case we would formally have to declare war.

I can't see there being a political solution in the short term either, they call them the Malvinas and say they are theirs, we call them the Falklands and say they are ours, two fairly entrenched positions. We might agree to possibly discuss oil reserves as a separate issue at some point. Every so often due to home political pressures, the Argentine government raise the Falklands issue, and I expect that will continue.

There are three points here, firstly it would be that much more difficult to defend territory in the South Atlantic than it was in 1982. Secondly we were not expecting Argentina to take Georgia then invade the islands. Thirdly and conversely, military technologies have improved in the last 30 years, so we wouldn't need to send up helicopters to drop chaff to confuse missiles etc.

Argentinas forces are most likely carefully monitored in many ways 24/7 and any large scale build up or deployment would be immediately seen, and appropriate action taken. PM Cameron chaired a COBRA meeting before Xmas on this very point and was quoted as saying that he was assured that we had the capability required to deal with it if neccessary.

However it is worrying when senior Military figures disagree Army Head. I would agree that if the islands were invaded again we would have a very difficult job to re-take them, but I don't see it getting that far. Neither do I think that we would consider attacking the mainland, in that case we would formally have to declare war.

I can't see there being a political solution in the short term either, they call them the Malvinas and say they are theirs, we call them the Falklands and say they are ours, two fairly entrenched positions. We might agree to possibly discuss oil reserves as a separate issue at some point. Every so often due to home political pressures, the Argentine government raise the Falklands issue, and I expect that will continue.

If the Argies want a punch up we'll give 'em one. I would not be at all surprised if extra SAS were not already there or on their way. You'd be quite surprised how quickly Hercules can get there via Ascension.

Sub deployment

Type 45 destroyer: Windows for Warships.

During its first major warfare sea exercise aboard HMS Daring the ship's Combat Management System crashed while under simulated air attack due to a power failure. The ship lost use of its combat management system, i.e. PAAMS. The ship's crew reverted to use of binoculars to spot incoming airborne threats until the CMS had been restarted.

Obviously the two are meeting up
to discuss the Syria issue and hence a joint operation together to bomb
that country.

Looks like the French had a hand in it all as well at one point ...

Falklands history