Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35376479)

Yet we won.. and since then their capability hasn't changed yet ours has... We might have lost our carrier base but this time I don't think they'll get to the island never mind occupy it..

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35376483)

Nobody thinks it'd be easy - but it isn't the same as last time and we're better placed now than we/they were then despite the lack of carriers.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35376484)

I really do hope you are right. But it could cost the lives of many British soldiers to find out.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35376441)

It's also possible that submarine lauched missiles could target Argentinian airbases but that would be upping the stakes somewhat.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35376488)

Also last time we had full backing from America. This time we don't.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35376492)

We had partial backing from the USA.. full support would have meant a US task force :rolleyes: There's no reason as to why we wouldn't get the same support

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35376497)

Ok, partial backing. But this time they aren't backing us....there is oil involved this time.

Originally Posted by chris9991 (Post 35376504)

If I can put my crazy hat for one moment; what about China? I could see there being an interest in China into who controlled the islands if there is oil. China would like to increase its own oil supply to meet domestic demand and it may try to do a deal with Argentina in supplying military capability. This might seem far fetched but China have been buying a lot of influence in South America so that it could gain access to the raw materials. China might also be interested to test its military capability against a highly defended island and see what lessons it could learn in what it takes to do so.

I don't think China would want to rock the boat but it is capable on going it's own way - just look at the veto in the security council at the UN with regards to Syria

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35375488)

LMAO.

You want to put "what remains of the British Armed forces (after Afg(h)anistan) to be based at the RAF base!".

OK, and I know this may hurt, but how about Mr Reality coming to visit, just this once.

RAF Mount Pleasant can currently hold between 1000 and 2000 personnel, and the current Falkland Islands population (not including the visiting servicepeople) is approx 3000.

Won't it get a bit crowded with 90,000 army personnel, 30,000 TA, 30,000 Navy personnel, 35,000 RAF personnel, 1000 aircraft, 97 active service ships, and all the tanks and artillery?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35375568)

If all concerned actually read the history rather than tub-thumping over the bits of it that support their cause, Uruguay's status as a sovereign nation would be up for debate as well. After all, at the same time as the Falklands were part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate, so was the territory north and east of the river estuary where Uruguay is now established.

Perhaps we should do as the Argentines argue, and ask the aboriginal peoples of that area what they think of Argentina and Uruguay. Mustn't ask the ethnic Europeans though, they're non-native and therefore they don't count.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35375641)

We could mount a very effective defence of the islands with the hardware at our disposal but invasion of hostile territory would be incredibly difficult without carrier-borne aircraft.

If Argentina were to successfully invade, and maintain Mount Pleasant airfield in operational condition, they would have air supremacy over the islands, making an amphibious assault all but impossible.

There would still be options, mind you; the new Daring Class (Type 45) destroyers could set up an aerial defence blockade while our submarine force could set up a picket and deny access to the islands from the sea. But what we would then have would be a siege situation, and one which the Argentines would be better placed to ride out than we would given the inconvenient geography.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35375734)

But they will have air superiority, which is all they need to fly troops and equipment in, and to launch air attacks on our ships.

Without the carriers we wouldn't have won last time.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35376668)

Nuking Buenos Aires in retaliation for a couple of sheep