Topic: Falkland Islands/Malvinas War II Brewing?

[Libertas]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/14/us-britain-argentina-falklands-idUSBRE85D1NA20120614

Not sure the Brit's are in a good position to absorb a lot of war costs, but what has happened before can always happen again.  At the conclusion of the last fracas I figured somewhere down the line it could pop up again.  I'll have to delve into each participants arsenal and see what the rematch might look like.

[Libertas]

On high-level raw numbers, UK has distinct advantages.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Argentina

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-Kingdom

Argentina has not engaged in any big military expenditures, their outlay is just 6.8% of the UK's.

But I ran across this interesting article from a year ago -

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=16583

I think it is obvious the good Admiral is trying to send two messages...warn politicians defense cuts are hurting manpower, equipment, readiness and mission capability...and warning politicans that Obama cannot be trusted to help them.  For the former some of that is no doubt hyped up a bit in order to boost the military's budget, and as for the latter I think it is accurate, but I wouldn't go so far as to think the Congress would allow Obama to openly side with the Argentinian's.

I think it likely that if Argentina were to make another play at this they could get entrenched, the Typhoon's, the Destroyer and the troops the Brit's have in place would make it a costly operation, but they could be in place before the Brit's could respond with support units.  The Argentinian's would have to realize that the only way this workds for them is to go in heavy holding nothing back and have at least a division or three on the ground.  The question then becomes "Do the Brit's have the resolve to do what it takes to retain control over this territory?", if the answer is "No" then Argentina emerges triumphant, if the answer is "Yes", then a lot of casualties will be in the offing.  Much more than the 649 Argentinian's, 255 Brit's and 3 natives that died the last time around.  The continuing disputes over fishing and oil rights is amping up the stakes.

Right now I don't see either party eager for a brawl, but continued disputes, UN meddling and economic issues could change the equation quickly.

[Glock32]

And there's no doubt which side the SCoaMF would come down on.

[AlanS]

...and warning politicans that Obama cannot be trusted to help them.

Fixed it.

[robins111]

I think the Argentina's are posturing again, and they'll play the game in the UN, till they try to play too hard in the south Atlantic and get the boot in the head again.

[charlesoakwood]

If the Brits do not go full bore and win they
shall have ceded themselves to the third world.

Just a few years ago that thought would have been ludicrous.

 

[Glock32]

They have subs with Tomahawk land attack missiles.  I'd have a few prowling the waters around the Falklands.  I'd also make a show of bumping up the garrison with some bombers.

Argentina's only real advantage is geography. Britain would be hard pressed to sustain a protracted conflict that far away. Amazing what comes out of the woodwork when the whole world knows there is a POS in the White House isn't it?

[ToddF]

The continuing disputes over fishing and oil rights is amping up the stakes.

As well as a Marxist dingbat driving the economy into the ground.  Time to deflect, for benefit of the stupid that are the left's voting base.

[Libertas]

Yeah, the SCoaMF does have a global effect...universally negative.