MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK says there is no evidence at all, Argentina has the capacity/strength to invade the Falklands
On the verge of the South Atlantic conflict 30th anniversary, the UK’s Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said that the Falkland Islands “do not face a current credible military threat from Argentina”, and brushed aside the rumours published by the British sensationalist media. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis is why the UK has not strengthened its defences in the South Atlantic in the last few months. Despite what some in Argentina believe.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0If there was evidence- and the UK have vast intelligence capabilities in this area of the world- of a pending Argentine invasion, the UK would have significantly increased air, land and sea assets in the area also.
More boots on the ground would be clear to see and Argentina- who also have good intelligence capabilities- would be aware of increases in say, the Typhoon squadron, and they wold be complaining about that.
No, like the Argentines say; no threat, and like the UK Gov't say; no militarisation.
@1 You need enough troops on the ground to keep the airfield british for 24 hours. That's the time it would take to get significant reinforcements (jets, soldiers) down to the islands.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's pretty well rehearsed these days. Just don't even let them get near the beach, or into the skies. That'd delay them for long enough.
Please give Hammand a prize for that riveting discovery. He has now discovered what has been a fact since 1982
Mar 30th, 2012 - 07:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0@3 Give your dear leader a prize for managing to squirrel away $2.1 Billion intended for a whole new fleet for Plummet Airlines.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Correection Greek, give CFK a prize for wiping out the budget surplus in a matter of months (it took Broon the cyclops 4 years), and a second place prize to the Argentine nation for not realizing this :)
Mar 30th, 2012 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina doesn't have the military capability to occupy a teacup.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't get too complacent,
Mar 30th, 2012 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0They said the same about Singapore in 1941.
“Their planes are made of bamboo & rice paper”
“They are short-sighted & all wear glasses”
“They can't shoot straight”
Then they shot down most of our planes & drove the RAF from the skies.
Don't underestimate them & don't underestimate their hatred.
“The price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance”
It would obviously be more convenient to destroy the planes on the ground and the ships in port, and the comms. systems BEFORE an invasion - like the Israelis do - but it is not the 'British' way.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The dilemma is that the Islands are relatively 'close' to Argentina, and might well be swamped by the invading 'Joint Defense Forces of Unasur' before a UK(/NATO/EU) 'task force' arrives.
This might need the 'UK' force to re-direct towards Buenos Aires to persuade them to leave the Islands (for this 'war' would not be just 'offshore' and out of sight) ....
preceded by a sub or two sending barrages of cruise missiles through selected windows, whilst the fleet, etc, is in transit.
This means 'No Warning' and a temporary cessation of 'Britishness',
but it would mean minimising loss of Argentinian lives - even though all the 3000 'hostages' on TFI might be 'terminated' by the angry Unasurians.
No, on second thoughts, maybe good intel. and early application of 'the Israeli strategy' is the only one that protects the lives of the Island community.
The things to watch for are big purchases of additional cruise missiles, and the rapid mass-departure of Brits from Argentina - for then you know what is about to happen.
perhaps they are going to buy one of those subs, off of Brazil.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0How could we ever be expected to trust the word of Argentine politicians who renege on deals as a matter of course? They talk endlessly about British 'threats to peace' in the region when we are threatening absolutely nobody. The implicit Argentine threats are perfectly clear, 'If you don't comply with our demands, then something unpeaceful will happen'. What might that be?
Mar 30th, 2012 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unless we get immediate categorical assurances from our NATO partners that we will have their unqualified support in the event of further Argentine aggression, we should withdraw forces from Afghanistan and other overseas deployments, and equip and position forces on standby for prompt retaliatory action as necessary. We certainly won't need any help if we're properly prepared, unlike the last hastily assembled fiasco, when the junta took full advantage of our naive and trusting politicians.
Speaking of unprovoked aggression, the next time RG aircraft head aggressively towards the Falklands to provoke Falkland air defences before turning and running; The RAF Typhoons should chase them all the way back to Argentina with weapons locked on. Imagine the RG pilots hysterically screaming into their radios and the squealing that would follow from Timidman & KFC :) Well, that could be construed as British aggression, albeit proportional and retaliatory. Then they might have something 'real' to whine about. Then at least, instead of constantly answering false Argentine allegations, we could hold our hands up and say to the UN, “Fair enough, that was a bit aggressive of us, sorry we won't do it again”.
@7 Quite right. There are only a few South American air forces that are worth noting. Argieland, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela. The best, in terms of quality of aircraft, is probably Peru. The Venezuelan Su-30MK2 can be compared to the Typhoon but can't carry as much armament. Moreover, Venezuela has, at best, 36 Su-30s whilst the RAF can field 86 Typhoons.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@10 Interesting thought. I wonder what territorial limit the UK recognises for argieland. I don't believe it is more than 12 nautical miles. However, I believe argieland has tried to claim 200 miles. A similarity perhaps with the Gulf of Sidra incidents in 1981 and 1989. In both cases, the belligerent (Libyan) aircraft were shot down.
The Argentines are defiantly a threat to the islands, they've been harassing commerce and trade and engaging in economic terrorism and mass brainwashing of their own extremely naive and under educated sheeple for some time now.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, militarily I don't think they would stand a hope in hell of staging a successful invasion of the Falklands.
What's on my radar is an international incident. It would probably backfire for Argentina but it's a likely progression from what we see now.
The other likely progression is for the hatred demonstrated in Argentina to become ever more intense. The kitchen government dynasty have been inciting the Argentine people to hate the British and Falkland Islanders for the best part of a decade. It's just about ready to take on a life of its own. At that point the Malvinas fanatics take over (you could argue they already have) and the sky is the limit for the amount of stupidity Argentina could engage in.
It would probably work in our favour but there is no room for complacency. There have been “savings” in Falklands defence, it's time to start spending again.
Also, the FIDF needs beefing up. They are a vital component to the defence of Stanley.
I'll also say this again - the Falklands needs to grow in population. This may not be easy or ideal but a large population will not only make the Falklands more viable, especailly on the global political stage but also provide a basis for self defence.
Britain is here for the Falklands now. but that may not always be the case. The good people here want to keep it that way but... things can change and enough good men are not always there.
Falklands start beefing up the FIDF now. Start encouraging migration to the islands from Britain and the old Commonwealth especially. Creat a Home Guard based on the British Aux Home Guard for older and younger potential and ex FIDF members. Set up a voluntary 3 year P/T FIDF service programme for young people to opt into.
Meanwhile, until the oil starts flowing and the Falklands is filthy rich, how about one or two helicopter carriers with Apache attack helicopters aboard. Those things are designed to destroy tanks. Imagine what they could do to a metal box floating in water. Glug, glug, glug!
Mar 30th, 2012 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0These guys would have been pretty effective if the Nazi' ever invaded Britain - The Axillary Home Guard http://www.coleshillhouse.com/
Mar 30th, 2012 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This would be a perfect extension of the FIDF's capabilities and ideal for those too old or too young, or too busy to serve in the FIDF.
It's a non issue.
Mar 30th, 2012 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For them to try again would make them look like they're in the wrong and they won't even be able to blame a dictatorship this time(Because there wasn't thousands of them cheering in the streets the first time, lol.).
Secondly - In order to take the islands you need to land on them. This is not possible for Argentina. You have a T-45 sitting off the islands thats going to splat any jet that gets close enough so the typhoons can make multiple runs with Anti ship missiles and take out the landing ships without even having to worry about other fighter jets.
The only possible way of getting on the islands is by landing special forces by sub, And there's no way on earth the 50-100 or so marines are going to take a fully equipped British military base when we have air superiority, artillery and countless hours of training in the territory for this exact situation. Even then they would have to take it within 48 hours, by which time there's going to be several hundred more squaddies landing for a fight.
Just isn't going to happen.
15 zethe
Mar 30th, 2012 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wouldn't say it's not possible but there are a number of things that the fascistic bastards could do short of an invasion. It's far superior to have an offensive posture, than a defensive posture. They have an offensive posture and the proximity.
We need to be on the ball. I would have MPA surrounded by mines and trip flares for a start - if it isn't.
4 Typhoons can do a lot of damage but realistically they're not enough. There needs to be a min of 6. At any one time half the force could be unavailable. A couple of Apache's would also make MPA adequately defensible. And where are those two Chinooks borrowed ages ago for Afghan? There are a lot more Chinooks available now, the two on loan need returning or replacing.
The FIDF needs a new arm - I suggest they need an Axillary in the form of the British Resistance during WW2.
There is no room for complacency.
“Typhoons can do a lot of damage but realistically they're not enough”
Mar 30th, 2012 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only takes one missile to hit a troop ship and there navy will be on it's way home. Fact is without air cover, no navy would sail ships with thousands of troops on them into what is a death trap. And there is no way on earth the jets they currently have are going to avoid the T-45's air cover or even go near a Typhoon.
They are enough.
“We need to be on the ball. I would have MPA surrounded by mines and trip flares for a start”
We don't use mines. We have not used mines for years.
“A couple of Apache's would also make MPA adequately defensible”
An utterly pointless item to have on the islands. Firstly with no ships landing with no heavy armour on the islands, They're just a MASSIVE target for RPG's in the hands of trained troops.
“And where are those two Chinooks borrowed ages ago for Afghan”
Do you even know what a Chinook purpose is? What need does MPA have for heavy troop transport. The idea is to defend the base, not move the troops from the base in mass numbers.
“I suggest they need an Axillary in the form of the British Resistance during WW2.”
They effectively ARE an Axillary.
“I wouldn't say it's not possible”
Explain to me a situation how currently, with what they have. Argentina would be able to take the islands.
Explain to me a situation how currently, with what they have. Argentina would be able to take the islands.....
Mar 30th, 2012 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sending a squadron of A-4AR in the middle of the night, with 2 Dardo 2b or 2c, would do the job
17 zethe
Mar 30th, 2012 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Explain to me a situation how currently, with what they have. Argentina would be able to take the islands.”
I wouldn't even go there, I could come up with endless possibilities.
It's not impossible, it' would be very irrational action - but Argentina is obviously not in the hands of rational people. The Falklands at the moment are like a bonfire waiting for a spark. Any government that fails to recongise that is irresponsible. Argentine could stage an incident - as they have in the past - using one of their Malvinas patsy fascistic terrorist groups in order to ratchet up the tension a bit more, one thing could lead to another before you know it all hells let loose.
The FIDF is not an Axillary in the form of British Resistance. They are trained and perform similar roles to a TA unit only adapted to the Falklands. They could increase numbers via creating speacialist units aimed at those who are too old, too young, live too remotely or don't have the time to commit to regular training.
AS for defending MPA - yes vital but... what if they took Stanley?
Please watch this short educational video on Argentina - it's hilarious...
Mar 31st, 2012 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas vs Falklands: Negotiations with the U.N.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vys78sGB7Y
Bang bang Feuer Frei if you can of course.
Mar 31st, 2012 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EszuUu4u1sU
They can probably do something stupid run up a flag on one of the unihabitated islands of the falklands fly a plane full of “patriots” to mpa or stanley or sail the stolen boat they are trying to nick off urguay.
Mar 31st, 2012 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0rather strange activitives but a pain for the MOD.
the point of the garrison is to have enough firepower to deter anything while not turning MPA into a a huge armed camp ( it can be rapidly reinforced and was designed that way)
The argentine military are bankrupt and likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future ( hard to set up rape and torture centres if you cant afford rope :))
Nobody else is going to fight argentinas battles for them chavez might be keen but his military not so much. They may have the kit but the experience and training not so much.
short of argentina producing a John rambo who can lead his hand picked team of special forces to capture MPA
while the entire garrison are struck down with terminal stupidity its not happening.
MPA may be a modern day singapore but Argentina is not a Modern day Imperial Japan.
Only in comics do 40 year old fighters beat modern fighter planes.
“AS for defending MPA - yes vital but... what if they took Stanley?”
Mar 31st, 2012 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Again, explain to me a situation where they can take Stanley when it is impossible for there ships to reach there islands.
I am all for the islanders defence but the stuff you are suggesting is overkill, Especially when our forces are stretched to breaking point as it is, the least they need is to be sending more troops to the falklands which is a totally and utterly pointless waste of resources because the Argentinians aren't going to invade, and even if they did try it would get them nowhere anyone with the who isn't completely bias can see this.
#18 welcome to try but your A4' S would run into two or three typhoons and get slaughted if not the t45 and then rapier .
Mar 31st, 2012 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the survivours would have to attempt to take out the air field not an easy task.
hope you like the crap bombed out of your air bases as the uk has cruise missiles to retaliate with plus any argentine naval ship will be joining the belgrano .
best put the invasion plans back in the box marked do not open ever.
There is no doubt that in a open pitched battle that the 4 Typhoons based at RAF Mount Pleasant can take out enough Argentine attack aircraft to break up incoming raids. However I would echo Isolde and point out that underestimating the determination and resourcefulness of the enemy (in this case Argentina) leads to complacency that can end in defeat.
Mar 31st, 2012 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 4 Typhoons can only manage so many sorties a day.
The T45 destroyers are criminally underarmed - the treasury stopped them from being fitted with the intended Tomahawk cruise missiles, Harpoon anti ship missiles and an inner layer SAM system (like RAM) through budget cuts. They are also potentially vulnerable to Argentine submarines.
Before people mention how old those boats are - remember that in 1982 we were lucky not to lose any ships to the San Luis - the only thing that stopped her posting tin fish into RN vessels was faulty wiring in her fire contol system - it made her wire guided torpedoes mis -run when launched at HMS Alacrity, Brilliant and Yarmouth. We never did get a proper fix on her.
Luck plays a big part in war - although fortune favoured us in the San Luis incident - the Argies got lucky when they hit Sheffield, Coventry and Atlantic Conveyor. In the later case the exocet flew through a chaff decoy cloud launched by an RN ship (saving it from being hit) only for it by blind chance to lock onto the Atlantic conveyor on the other side!
The forces we have deployed are so small that one false move or bit of bad luck (like a couple of planes lost to weather, or mechanical breakdown) could unhinge the entire defence effort.
I would be more afraid of some sort of “Gulf of Tonkin” incident or a seizure of a UK/FI flagged vessel or the capture of the drilling rig. They may try the “veterans landing” ploy or land troops from submarine or the Hercules to raise the flag somewhere remote. They could try to shoot down the Hercules or VC 10 as an easy target. We will have to remain watchful.
And how many sorties does it take to hit one boat with one missile? That's all it takes to send them home.
Mar 31st, 2012 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Say for example that they did launch an all out invasion. There dated aircraft not only have to deal with the t-45(and yes it was cut back on some systems, but it's air to air combat system is one of the best in the world.) but also Typhoons who are also firing missiles at troop landing craft along with SAM systems at MPA itself, the Argentine aircraft will have the EXACT same problems as the last war(lack or fuel) while the typhoons will enjoy every single advantage they could ever hope for. In an environment they train for daily, It would be a complete massacre.
That's not even counting the fact that if there's one of our sub's in the area, they won't even have any airfields to fly from due to tommahawk missiles landing on them.
Then, even IF(and that's a big if) they manage to land, there troops(i can't honestly see how the current Argentinian navy could transport more than 1000 troops with the navy they have) have to fight a far better trained force with more equipment air cover artillery and other equipment in a situation they also train for daily.
And they have to take the base within 48 hours before more troops.
Seriously, the base is fine as it is.
shb #25 -
Mar 31st, 2012 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0my fears also.
Unasur joint services wargame in/off Argentina,
TFI airstrip incapacitated by covert landings,
then overwhelmed by numbers.
No warning.
Once overwhelmed, and populated from troops from a large number of Unasur nations, the brits would have to - once more - attack TFI rather than the attacking country/countries.
Real politik.
Once overwhelmed, the brits would have to fight the combined might of the United Nations - forever bogged-down in Resolutions, votes, vetos, etc, etc.
The brits would be graciously allowed to bring home their kith and kin.
The whole South West Atlantic and Antarctic Sea sector becomes an Argentinian province .....
People and resources, resources and people.
'Defend to excess' until the mid-Atlantic rapid-reinforcement staging post becomes fully operational and effective.
overwhelmed by covert landings.....?
Mar 31st, 2012 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If every navy in south america sent all there subs they still wouldn't be able to land 1000 troops on the islands.
I don't see how a covert force will overwhelm a larger, better trained force with air power and artillery in under 48 hours.
You guys are seriously paranoid.
So Hammond, you´ve just admited you are spending a lot of money and focusing on an area where there are no threat at all.
Mar 31st, 2012 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a dumb guy.
@ 25, 27: you guys are paranoid. You´re currently FIGHTING A WAR in A-stan and Iraq, but it seems like all the BRitish military effort in focused on the south atlantic. Wise up.
If you are going to do it,
Mar 31st, 2012 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You must first look at history,
Just think how many times, the British, and others have go into the impregnable,
Defeat the impossible, escaped from the inescapable.
Example, [troy] Trojan horse,
A cruise liner enters argentine port, spend 1 week,
All pre-arranged,, enter 3-4, thousand troops, with equipment and arms,
Upstairs, the passengers embark for the Falklands,
But the passengers are south American sympathisers.
Arrive in port Stanley at midnight,-03am,
Troops storm off, ½ split, right to Stanley, left to the air base,
What are chances of pulling this of,,
Is it possible, is it a dream, are we worrying to soon,
Just how desperate are they, just how overconfident are we,
Just a historical thought .
But hey, they only want peace and to talk,
Is this not correct .
.
[29 estg
relax, just talking, just idle gossip, is it not .?
why use the military when the economic strangle hold on the Falklands/Malvinas is working perfectly...
Apr 01st, 2012 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are no British Troops in Iraq.
Apr 01st, 2012 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0aussie sunshine (#31)
Apr 01st, 2012 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Why?”
because the nature of TFI community and the regional uninhabited Protectorate archipelago is that it can exist indefinitely on minimal support from the Protector nation.
Only an aggressive military intervention can alter this paradigm, and this sort of intervention is what the Protector wishes to permanently deter.
The deterrence is political, economic and military - not necessarily in that order.
@33 GeoffWard2,
Apr 01st, 2012 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Re “aussie sunshine”
He's a fake, but he won't take the hint.
Still, its fun to bait him/her/it.
lts a dill.
as long as the british goverment backs the islanders,
Apr 01st, 2012 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then all the blockading and retoric cage shaking is meaningless.
the basic problem of CFK is that she is picking on the wrong people.
is she not .
as long as the british goverment backs the islanders,
Apr 02nd, 2012 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0then all the blockading and retoric cage shaking is meaningless
Who cares,just take care of the 3millions unemployed in uk,and HUUUge debt.......,like 9trillions,to a ration of 1.3 trillion GDP,very bad indeed...
You could get several thousand troops 0n a cruise liner true but with no armour its rather pointless and rather difficult to hide the fact.
Apr 02nd, 2012 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its tom clanesque fantasy stuff getting tomahawks fired at the mainland in response to aggresion might seriously put a dent in any enthuisasium for thatbplan.
In 1982 we went to war after no losses of military lives.
The Uk would go Batshit if argentina killed uk forces we'd want cfk dead on on trial for war crimes at the very least.
can she be accompanyied by @36,
Apr 02nd, 2012 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it will save us a few pennies.
Please join -
Apr 04th, 2012 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Keep the Falklands British -
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Keep-the-Falklands-British/123151384435619?sk=wall&filter=1
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!