On high-level raw numbers, UK has distinct advantages.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Argentinahttp://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=United-KingdomArgentina 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=16583I 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.