Falklands and oil

[Steely Glint]

Please understand that there is just not going to be a repeat of 1982. The situation, military and political, is completely different.

Differences:

- Although the RN has been drastically run down in terms of fleet numbers, man power and funding since the 1980s, it is still completely modernized. The Argentinean military has been neglected even more the British (what does this tell you about Argentinean intentions about trying to take the islands by force?), and is still at 1980s levels. In 1982, only two RN ships had modern anti-air defenses (one of which shot down 3 of 4 attacking skyhawks in about 20 seconds), for example, now they all do.
- The British have an air field there now with a 1000 man garrison and four eurofighters (against Argentina's ~35 50s and 60s era fighters). As long as that airfield remains, the islands can be re-enforced by air.
- The modern Royal Navy has plenty of amphibious units it didn't have in the 80s.
- A major cause of RN difficulties in the 80s was lack of airborne early warning - Argentinean pilots flew in low to avoid detection by ship radar before popping up to release exocets. We have air born early warning now.
- The US stayed out of the conflict in the 80s because it had the Soviet threat to worry about, and the Argentinean Junta was a key regional ally in preventing the spread of communism. In 2010, there's no Soviet threat to worry about and Britain is a key ally in Afghanistan and Iraq. Expect more overt US support.
- The 'attack on one is an attack on all' clause of NATO isn't geographically limited any more. There may be NATO help as well.
- Argentina is a democracy, and has ruled out using force to try and reclaim the islands.
- Even when Argentina was ruled by a brutal Junta it only attacked because it thought Britain would not bother to respond: there can be no illusions on this point now. One such signal which lead Argentina to believe no respond would be made was the withdraw of the warship kept in the area. Today, there's a patrol boat and a RFA tanker (filling in for HMS Endurance, which is broken) and a Type 42 destroyer on the way south. It's exactly the opposite situation.
- Even without all the above, one SSN lurking in the area could stop an invasion dead in its tracks.

So, no. There will be no second Falklands War which will bankrupt GB and Argentina. Assuming (big assumption) that this every amounts to more than sabre rattling by the Argentinean government for the benefit of their voters (also remember that the claim to the Falklands is written into their constitution and a leader who doesn't persue the claim could be charged for violating their constitution, so they have to at least be seen to be making an effort), the most you will ever see on the war front is maybe a few ships firing across each others bows or something.

[ar81]

War always takes place when war is politically cheaper and less costly than starting a war.
Financially it is awful, as well as its effects.

[EyeKhan]

You can't use a warship to force passage through Argentinean territorial waters, Randy. That'd be a violation of their sovereignty, not protecting ours.

EDIT: that said, a destroyer, HMS York, is being sent to the Falkland islands, just to make a point.
EDIT AGAIN: scrub the above, Argentina has some kind of ludicrous claim of territorial waters which extends well beyond the Falklands themselves.



This changes things somewhat. I still claim Argentina wouldn't start a shooting war. All Britain has to do is suggest there might be a SSN in the area and that's that for any offensive naval action by Argentina. But I can see some sort of Cod War type scenario happening. That would make things interesting. I don't know if the RN might find it hard to protect all the ships in the area, because of their deficiency in fleet numbers and funding.

That claim of territory is absolutely absurd.

[ar81]

That claim of territory is absolutely absurd.

War is ridiculous too. And still it happens.

[Steely Glint]

Except, of course, it won't in this case.

[EyeKhan]

Except, of course, it won't in this case.

There's no way they can enforce those territorial waters. I would think the UN would have to get involved, its a precedent that could lead to war all over the place.

[Steely Glint]

Just in case ar81 hasn't quite got it yet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8524001.stm

When it comes to the Falkland Islands, there are two things that almost everyone seems to agree on in the alleys and boulevards of this sunny, eccentric cocktail of a city (one part Manila, two parts Paris).

The first home truth - shared by the languid sunbathers adorning the public parks, and the tattooed shopkeepers in the dusty slums - is that the Falklands - or Las Malvinas as they're known here - belong to Argentina and should at some point be incorporated into her sovereign territory

[...]

The second shared conviction here is that Argentina cannot and must not try to resolve the issue by military means.

For some this is simply a realistic assessment of the odds of victory, but for many people it is part of a more general acknowledgement of Argentina's transformation from a military dictatorship to a globally-integrated democracy.

"Let me stress that we are only pursuing this through diplomatic channels and protests," said Ruperto Godoy, a Congressman and now the government's nominated spokesman on the Falkands question.

[ar81]

Ok, so it will be a war of banners and hardtalk?
We humans are finally evolving...