If it comes to war, I strongly doubt America will intervene at all; I'd ask why America was even coming up in this topic in the amount that it is, but I think we all know the answer to that.
I'm not so sure. The fact that it's likely that Britain can't defend its interests by force of arms means that America may well be called in to pick up the slack.
Dreams of Revenge
Don't be so sure, Whale. For one thing, I think we never even knew the Falklands had oil up until recently, so there was no way we could have fought the war for oil. Secondly, there are British citizens on that island and as such we are obligated to defend them if they are attacked.
@Falkland Island defences:
While the defences are less than ample, they are better than they were in the 80's, and the Eurofighter is a very capable aircraft. Okay, so it would be a freak occurence to put it lightly if they kicked the stuffing out of every aircraft that came their way, but they'd certainly put up a good show and put a dent in the aviation arm of the Argentinian invasion force.
And if the Falklands were invaded, I imagine that we'd probably make every effort we could to retake the islands, possibly including buying carriers from other nations (since there's no way we could build one in time to respond, but buying one would also take time) or bringing older ships out of retirement* so there's every possibility of us being able to strike at the islands. Alternatively, we could modify some aircraft to have larger fuel tanks/drop tanks to extend their range, though it may be difficult.
edited 19th Dec '11 11:31:42 AM by Flanker66
Locking you up on radar since '09
Bloody Fossil
Buying a carrier would likely take to long, even if you acquire aircraft and everything else along with it, you'll still need to train the crew and all. For one, there's few pilots in the British military at the moment trained for carrier flying (only those who flew Harriers until earlier this year) and none trained for conventional fast jet/catapult/arrested landing operations.
The aircraft currently stationed on the islands cold however hold off Argentine forces for at least sometime, possibly long enough to bring RAF reinforcements there.
A different shape every step I take A different mind every step of the line
Decemberist
I think everyone is forgetting one thing, 10 years ago, Argentina suffered a sovereign debt crisis. Their military is even worse than it was in 1982.
edited 19th Dec '11 1:33:52 PM by whaleofyournightmare
Dutch Lesbian
So, for a definitive answer: if it came to a fight, who would win, Argentina, or the UK?
Also, you're wrong if you think that Kirtchner is trying to gain favour with Venezuela. She's not THAT leftist, at least not compared to Chavez's government, and although they're friendly, they're not really close allies.
edited 19th Dec '11 1:48:37 PM by stripesthezebra
Unchanging Avatar.
I would say the UK would win a war, but can't hold the Falkland Islands right now.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Bloody Fossil
The big question is whether they can manage to fend off an inital attack long enough to get reinforcements there.
Assuming Argentina tries to gain air superiority first (which would be sensible), it's the same fighters they had back in 1982 versus four Eurofighters, top-tier multirole combat aircraft. I'd say they can manage that, but not for long. If they get more troops and equipment down there quick enough, that could even manage to deter an actual invasion.
So yes, they could win it, but only if the initial defences hold and by acting quick enough at the right moment.
A different shape every step I take A different mind every step of the line
A procrastination in of itself
Savage is likely right about the Spanish not being willing to do anything. While I do think the current defences would not hold out for very long things would likely be a repeat of last time. While yes the UK lacks an aircraft carrier I recon we could kick up enough of a fuss in NATO to get France to mobilise their one and help us take it back.
This isn't just because of us being in NATO (I swear an attack on the Falklands would technically count as an attack on all of NATO) but the French have their own reason for not wanting Argentina to grab the Falklands. They still have some territory in South America (which is also where the euro space program is based) and the last thing they need is for the people boarding their land to go "Hey Argentina got their bit back. Maybe we could do the same?".
Anyone know the comparative power of the Argentinean and British sub fleets? I am pretty sure we had them dramatically out subbed in the 80s. What about now?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
Actual Wrestling Legend
Only Tom baker can save us now.
I'm a skeptical squirrel
Bloody Fossil
If the British could get France in on it halfway quick that would definitely help them. Getting Charles de Gaulle down there is going to be faster than deploying RAF squadrons.
As for submarines, Argentina has three German-built diesel-electrics, while Britain has seven nuclear-powered fleet subs and four nuclear ballistic missile boats. Should be a decent advantage.
A different shape every step I take A different mind every step of the line
Decemberist
Seven? Are you sure?
Dutch Lesbian
Bloody Fossil
At least so says Wikipedia
. Six Trafalgar-class (with one of them, Turbulent, to be decommissioned by the end of this year) and the new Astute.
How many of those could be deployed to such an operation at any given point is of course a very different question.
edited 19th Dec '11 2:42:41 PM by Catfish42
A different shape every step I take A different mind every step of the line
Decemberist
The first Astute isn't quite ready yet though.
Dutch Lesbian
Bloody Fossil
No, planned full entry into service seems to be about a year from now.
In a case of war and depending on how soon it were to happen there could be a little chance however of Astute being in service by the time or the remaining procedures being sped up, or of Turbulent being taken back into service, though I'm unsure about the actual feasibility of either.
There's still the five other boats however and with, say, two deployed that's a definite threat in combination with helicopter ASW assets present on surface ships and/or helicopter carriers.
A different shape every step I take A different mind every step of the line
Decemberist
Mercosur, which includes Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, came to the decision at a summit in the Uruguayan capital, Montevideo.
But Uruguayan President Jose Mujica said British-flagged civilian ships that may supply the islands would still be allowed to use its ports.
The Foreign Office said there was "no justification" for the action.
The Falklands flag is flown by 25 boats, mostly fishing vessels operated in joint ventures with Spanish companies.
The Mercosur decision is the latest in a series by Latin American regional bodies designed to show solidarity with Argentina which has long claimed sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, which it calls Las Malvinas.
Britain has held them since the 1830s and says their future is not negotiable. The two countries fought a brief but bloody war over the islands in 1982.
Their dispute has flared again recently. Last year, Argentina accused the UK of breaking international rules by allowing oil drilling under a seabed off the islands, located in a vast area of potentially mineral-rich South Atlantic waters.
Britain has also refused recent requests to re-open negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Uruguay proposed the move to close ports to Falklands-flagged vessels. Mr Mujica said: "We hold nothing against the UK. But we have a lot in favour of Argentina."
He said solidarity among South America's neighbours was key to his country's foreign policy, adding: "For the moment, this means accepting that this territory is a colonial British position in our America."
However, the president of the Falklands Chamber of Commerce, Roger Spink, told the BBC that they were a small community, and felt increasingly under blockade.
"If we were Palestine, the European Union would be up in arms," he said.
The Foreign Office, who called on Uruguay's ambassador in London to explain the move last week, said it was discussing the developments "urgently with countries in the region".
A spokesman said: "We are very concerned by this latest Argentine attempt to isolate the Falkland Islands people and damage their livelihoods, for which there is no justification.
"It is not immediately clear what practical impact, if any, this statement will have, which mirrors the language already used by the Union of South American Nations in 2010.
"But no-one should doubt our determination to protect the Falkland Islanders' right to determine their own political future."
The Foreign Office called on Uruguay's ambassador in London to explain the move last week.
But the former Foreign Office minister Denis Mac Shane said the "hostile action" was aimed at London, not the Falklands, and blamed the coalition for weakening Britain's international standing.
The Labour MP said: "South American leaders know that Britain has fewer friends than ever before because of David Cameron's isolationist approach in Europe and the indifference to the Obama administration as most cabinet members are close to US neo-Cons.
"Brazil and other countries know that thanks to Liam Fox's defence cuts, the UK no longer has aircraft carrier capability so British maritime power projection has been fatally weakened by the government."
Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who took over the presidency of the trade bloc from Mr Mujica, thanked her fellow presidents for the show of support.
Delivering a speech to the summit, she said: "I want to thank everyone for their immense solidarity with the Malvinas.
"But you should know that when you are signing something on the Malvinas in favour of Argentina you are also doing it in your own defence.
"Malvinas is not an Argentine cause, it is a global cause, because in the Malvinas they are taking our oil and fishing resources.
"And when there is need for more resources, those who are strong are going to look for them wherever and however they can."
British companies are exploring for oil in the waters surrounding the islands, which are 400 nautical miles from the Argentine coast.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
It's ironic that, at least in this case, Argentina is far more imperialistic than Britain. They want that land, popular soverignty be damned.
I say, sell the Enterprise and the associated aircraft to Britain. The Gerald R. Ford will be commissioned in 2015, so the gap wouldn't be THAT great, and we could reshuffle carrier positions. Maybe even consider the Nimitz. (JFK to replace it in 2018).
Also, the US REALLY need to bring up the hypocrisy of the South Americans regarding this to the UN. Popular Sovereignty for the South Americans, but not the Falklanders? Bullshit.
Hell, let's go all the way, and just move some ships to be stationed in the Falklands, or some of the other South Atlantic British Islands.
The Mod with the Migraine
If the US decided to sell an aircraft carrier to the Brits, we've got something like a half dozen conventional carriers sitting around in ports. I'm pretty sure they could get the Kitty Hawk up and running - it's only been out of service for two years.
I don't think the Falklands would be a good place to put US forces, however. Mostly, because there's no reason for us to have a base that far south in the Atlantic. Even if we decided to go Total War on the drug cartels, it's too far from the major bases of operations to be cost-effective. There's nothing else in the region I can think of to give it strategic importance.
Also, what's to stop the two dozen ships with Falkland Island flags to just switch to British flags and thumb their noses at this ban?
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
They may be aiming this at the UK, but the ones they're hurting is the Falklanders. And looking kind of like jackasses in the process.
I changed accounts.
So, four British Eurofighters and some soldiers... against a whole military?
...
Well, bunker down for the long haul, folks.
Though a joint Anglo-French mission to repel the Argentinians might do wonders for EU cohesiveness...
I am now known as Flyboy.
Internet Wanderer
The Four Wings of the Falkland Islands!
In all seriousness, this is starting to worry me, with Brazil and other South American nations showing solidarity with Argentina by banning Falkland Islands flags. I'm hoping it just stays a saber-rattling contest and not a shooting war.
edited 21st Dec '11 11:59:15 AM by TrevMUN
A poorly armed, very wet and rather miserable British island against a whole continent of rather shady bullies?
Why my dear boy, that's where we excell!
edited 21st Dec '11 12:01:06 PM by TheBatPencil
And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)
It really isn't in America's interests to let this kind of bullshit fly, though I can't say whether we would or would not intervene. It partly depends on who speaks first in Congress (if the Democrats support intervention, the Republicans will oppose on reflex, we all know that song).
Of course, this all sounds to me like Argentina trying to cozy up with Venezuela.