MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands MPA has the minimum force necessary to prevent a repeat of 1982 invasion
The UK military base in the Falkland Islands has the “minimum necessary force to prevent a repeat of the illegal invasion such as that of 1982” committed by Argentina said Foreign Office Minister of State for Latinamerican affairs Hugo Swire during an interview with the Argentine news agency, Diarios y Noticias. (*) Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesUK military numbers in the area - 1,500
May 21st, 2013 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine military numbers in the area - 70,000
The British have been meticulous in ensuring that they have no more than equivalent amount of personnel to Argentina.
It's nice to see the truth being told to the Argentine people about all this.
May 21st, 2013 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0If they truly fear 1,500 military personnel, then they are either:
a) stupid
b) cowards
c) deluded
d) all of the above
As for the nuclear weapons claim, that was nearly as funny as when Mr Timidman told the UN that Britain has sent the 'death star' aka HMS Dauntless, and that the radio antenna on the Islands was spying on Argentina, when it turned out to be part of an international scientific research group.
Maybe some of the Argentine people were fooled, but the rest of the world just sniggered at Argentina's clownish and amateurish antics.
Come on people of Argentina, get rid of these fools who are destroying your country, not only economically, but destroying what little reputation you had.
The world now looks at Argentina and all they see is a country that breaks treaties, lies, cheats, and refuses to honour its debts.
In other words they see a deadbeat country. And it's so sad, because Argentina has the resources and potential to become one of the most powerful economic powers in the world, but you are letting a bunch of gangsters piss it all away, while they are lining their own pockets.
Shame.
Argentina is no military threat to Chile... so why do the Chileans maintain first line fighters at Punta Arenas?
May 21st, 2013 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Because no one trusts an RG... especially an RG with a map......
I think the question to be answered is do the Brits have a minimum force sufficient to prevent Argentina legally resuming sovereignty over the islands?
May 21st, 2013 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Blaspheming person (you'll burn in hell pretending to be a Pope you know - but then maybe you aren't catholic so don't care)
May 21st, 2013 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ha, ha.
A few points for you to consider.
1. Argentina cannot 'resume' sovereignty over a territory that has never been theirs! We don't count the 3 month illegal occupation as sovereignty, especially as your brave armed forces were planning on murdering the entire population of the islands.
2. The only LEGAL way to assume sovereignty is with the consent of the people of the Falkland Islands. That's called self-determination. I know this concent of freedom and democracy frightens you Argentines who have never truly known it, but it is the ONLY legal way in international law that a country can 'gain' territory in our enlightened 21st century.
Now try putting your tiny intellect to this conumdrum. How does trying to intimidate the Falklanders, starve them out, ignore their human rights and say they do not exist work when trying to 'woo' the people over to your point of view?
Does it: a) Make them suddenly realise that they are wrong and you are right? OR Does it: b) make them more determined to remain free of the dictatorial basket case country that is trying to steal their land and resources?
Psst! I'll give you a clue, the answer is b).
So if you cannot get the Falkland Islands legally, as in by following international law, your only real option is to try and take them illegally, just like you tried in 1982. How did that work out for you? Oh yes, it was a humiliating defeat at the hands of the British whose supply lines stretched 8,000 km! The British who won despite EVERY military expert on the planet saying it was impossible!
Now if 1500 military personnel can keep all of Argentina's armed forces (70,000 plus) at bay, what does that tell the world about Argentina and it's armed forces?
Weak, cowardly, pathetic about sums it up, doesn't it? Or is that just your governmnet?
4Teen TT
May 21st, 2013 - 07:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0what a throwaway line. Nothing intelligent to say??
Already whacked off, Toby?? Late night porn session is boring, now?
:-)
@ John III (Pope)
May 21st, 2013 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0When have the Argentinians ever done anything in a legal manner? I think that if we all study recent history Argentina is guilty of breaking just about every international law and agreement that relate to it along with breaking international conventions on human rights . Even the mythical South American solidarity is now being destroyed by the Argentinian government.
One thing I don't understand is how, with a total embarrassment for an armed forces, has Argentina managed to “bully and intimidate” its neighbours?
As we all know, but SOME wont accept, The Falklands are a BOT.
Nostril is up proving conclusively he is not in SA. Pope? Fires of hell for him...
May 21st, 2013 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is kind of a misnomer really, we all know that what really terrifies the argentines is what is lurking under the water off their coast and that's the bit we don't discuss. In addition, they know the damage a few cruise missiles can make. We have technologically advanced quite a lot since 1982, it's only the Argies that have stood still.
May 21st, 2013 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 9 Britworker
May 21st, 2013 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly.
Military doctrine was heavily influenced by the Falklands War. We lost too many ships and men because, at the time, it was considered politically 'inconvenient' to attack the Argentine mainland, because of the perceived reactions of other South American countries.
In this day and age complete air superiority is the order of the day, and have seen it in action in the 1st Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It no longer matters if other countries 'tut, tut' at bombing military targets, because that is what needs to be done. In the case of Argentina, the ONLY reason that the UK would attack them is IF they started firing 1st.
So no country in the world (with the exception of Argentina - mainly because they are deluded) would be surprised that IF Argentina tried to invade the Falklands again, the UK's 1st targets would be their airfields, their radar installations and their anti-aircraft weaponry.
In other words we would bomb Argentina itself, and because of the advancements in technology, we could launch a missle from over a thousand miles away, and still acurately hit our intended target.
This is, of course, not a boast. Cruise missiles were launched from RN Submarines in the Indian Ocean to hit targets in Afghanistan, in 2002. Technology has impoved even more since then.
The Argentine government (for all of their whinging and crying) know this, and they know that their technologically inferior, and inexperienced military wouldn't stand a chance. The fact is that the Argentine government is more afraid of their own military than they are of the UK's military and therefore starves them of funding, sums in all up nicely.
Arg Newspaper factually incorrect anyway - there are not 1500 - there are 1000-1050 uniformed forces at MPA!
May 21st, 2013 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0The rest are the civilain support staff- and a lot of those are actually Chileans!!
Earth shatterring headline though- MPA is there to defend and repel any repeat of 1982 - wow!- an Arg newspaper has taken 30 years to work that out!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paper is also wrong to say there is no threat -current Arg Defence Minister has publicly stated that they woulkd re-enter the Islands but for the currect British Defences - ie MPA IS achieving its puropose.
@4 As was conclusively proven in 1982, one British soldier is the equivalent of 20 argies. Although argies can be faster downhill as they are lighter having dropped their equipment and regularly go on “slimming” diets. It's one reason for the small size of certain “graves” at the argie military cemetery at Darwin. You don't need a very big hole for bones.
May 21st, 2013 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0What you should be more concerned about is what is in all those buildings at Mount Pleasant. The UK is very experienced at underground hardened hangars. Also, there are the submarine bases with sub-surface entry and exit tunnels. Similar to nazi u-boat pens but constructed below sea level. Everybody recalls the Eurofighter Typhoons flying into the Falklands, but no-one ever mentions the Tornados flying back to the UK. Everybody recalls the argie accusations of British nuclear submarines sailing into the South Atlantic, but no stories about them returning to base. And submarines can transport troops as well! Who knows what's sitting on the Falkands just waiting? Of course, a ballistic missile submarine doesn't have to go further south than the Bay of Biscay to hit Buenos Aires.
Just as a matter of interest, when has argieland ever had legal sovereignty over the Falkland Islands? 1820? By a pirate? 1829? By an unrecognised “government”? 1832? By a dead man? Not much “legal sovereignty” there. You really must try harder.
How are the British meant to invade South America with only 1,500 men? Maybe that pathetic 'militarisation' theory is incorrect!
May 21st, 2013 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@15
May 21st, 2013 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps the Argies know something about their army that we don't, 1500 men might just be enough to conquer Argentina.
Thanx CJvR, we do need some more sense of humor on this page.
May 21st, 2013 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's been a whiles since my last laughing fit, I needed it!
If the Argentinean Armed Forces invade again, the 'Sol de Mayo' should be of the 'bucket of instant' type that RAF Vulcans and Canberras carried in their heyday. There are indications that the British government gave thought to the use of Polaris in 1982 should the war have gone badly; we had to ensure that the Soviet Union knew that we meant business.
May 21st, 2013 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a safer world now, but genocidal aggression must be deterred, and defeated if it arises.
About a month and a half ago, the local artillery regiment went out to do a practice shoot. Of their 16 Unimogs, only 5 funtioned and so had to ferry the 150 mm guns out five at a time. Once all was ready they actually did a shoot, one round per gun and then were ferried back to base, but it took a bit longer as one more Unimog had broken down!!!!!!!
May 21st, 2013 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I ask myself if it is really worth using our taxes to keep these poor soldiers going or if it would be better to say to hell with defense and just hope that our neighbours don't really want to get their own back on us for past sins!!!!!
@17 You have to look at it this way. An army or welfare benefits? Come to think of it, what's the difference? But, to be serious, can you imagine argie “troops” yomping across half the Islands under full kit? In all the pictures I've seen, they seemed to be struggling under the weight of their rain capes! Except when they were running of course.
May 21st, 2013 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 018 Conqueror (#)
May 21st, 2013 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May 21st, 2013 - 05:49 pm
I think its a case of: “The flesh is willing but the exchequer is weak”!!!!!!!!!
Well,
May 21st, 2013 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We could reduce this massive impregnable fortress,
With one bi plane= one Ghurkha and a fishing boat,
But as we don’t want to humiliate you with your neighbours
Then the minimum we have, will just have to suffice lolol.
.
@20 Briton
May 21st, 2013 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We could remove everyone and just have a submarine occasionally surfacing off the coast of Argentina whilst playing the theme tune from Jaws. ;)
Thanx guys, ahhh finally some solid laughs on this site! Not that I want to criticize, just ehhh, there is a limit how long one can be serious about something.
May 21st, 2013 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#3
May 22nd, 2013 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Frank: “Argentina is no military threat to Chile... so why do the Chileans maintain first line fighters at Punta Arenas? Because no one trusts an RG... especially an RG with a map......”
Sums it up very well from a Chilean perspective...
@10
May 22nd, 2013 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, the Brits have updated their 19th century gun boat diplomacy. How long do you are think you can keep that up.
@24 - Tobias
May 22nd, 2013 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good morning.
You misunderstand (as usual). The UK is no threat to Argentina, as long as you keep your thieving hands off our territory.
But should you be stupid enough to try and steal our territory again, I'm just pointing out that just how much military doctrine was changed by the events in 1982.
Military doctrine basically means how the military of a country (or in this case NATO members) react to certain situations. Because of the Falklands War and the losses sustained, Military Doctrine changed to the fact that the 1st targets would be the airforce, radar installations and anti-aircraft weaponry of the country that is stupid enough to challenge you. That means we would bomb Argentina itself. However, your military is non-effective, woefully underfunded by your Government who is more afraid of the military than they are or anything else.
So it's all really hypothetical, isn't it?
Argentina can continue to cry, crawl, beg and otherwise humilate yourselves on the world stage, but try anything aggressive against the Falkland Islands OR any other British territory, and we'll give you a spanking, much worse than the one we gave you in 1982.
By the way, how is that South American soliarity going for you?
Oh, they're all turning their backs on you. Hardly surprising considering how you treat your so-called 'brothers'.
#24
May 22nd, 2013 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How long is a piece of string ?
Speaking of thieves, we demand the immediate return of Patagonia to its historical national association with Chile, which those thieving Argentinians unfairly pressured our nation to surender illegally. PATAGONIA BELONGS TO CHILE! Kick those illegal Argentine colonists out of our territory now...
May 22nd, 2013 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Warm milk and cookies will be provided to any SAS or Gurkha visitors...
Aw look Tobias has run back to mummy, scared away.
May 22nd, 2013 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shame, it's always fun to wind him up.
agreed lol.
May 22nd, 2013 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@24
May 22nd, 2013 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK have managed it with the gradual decrease of forces for thirty years so it's an educated guess as Argentina wants to fail totally as a country there is a 'rolling contract.' If 70 000 Argentinians are frightened of attack by just over 1000 service personnel (who are not all fighting troops), and attack by air defence missiles with a 4 mile range then try some military training?
@26
May 23rd, 2013 - 06:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You need to address your question the Politburo of the Communist Party of the PRC. They know how long your piece of string is.
Well if the argies attempt to invade again there are some big weatherproof sheds at MPA to put the prisoners in and the catering facillites are top notch.
May 23rd, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Swire:
May 23rd, 2013 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The malvinazi morons ought to be reminded, over and over again, that the UK is one of the world's leading military powers, and as such, is always ready to defend the British Isles, and its overseas territories.
Philippe
@31 - blasphemer
May 23rd, 2013 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whenever the Chinese and British met in battle, the Chinese often came off worse.
It was reported that a Chinese General said to the Commanding Officer of the Glosters, “ if this is how you defend a country that means nothing to you, then I pity the men who are stupid enough to invade England.”
He was talking about the battle of Imjin river at Hill 327, in Korea where 1 British Regiment (the Glosters) held up the advance of, and destroyed the fighting capability of an entire Chinese army, giving UN troops time to move into position.
The Chinese may or may not like the British we'll have to ask them, but they respect us as we do them, and they are certainly not stupid enough to underestimate us.
Argentina could learn a lot from China. The problem is that you are all too arrogant to admit that you can be wrong.
@34
May 24th, 2013 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're not too bright are you. We are going to bankrupt you. So make sure that you keep sending the money.
How we spend £70 million defending the islands most of that is in the form of salarys and equipment costs that would be still be paid if the troops and kit were in the uk.
May 24th, 2013 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its o.o3% of gdp slightly less than we spend on bicycle infrastructre.
#35
May 24th, 2013 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please explain to the unenlightened how the economic superpower which is NOT Argentina intends to do that.
@35 Tedious Teen Toby
May 24th, 2013 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You're not too bright are you. We are going to bankrupt you. So make sure that you keep sending the money.”
Toby
That's an odd statement. Are you upset?
Put your lower lip back in, it looks silly when you pout and sulk like that.
@35
May 24th, 2013 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We are going to bankrupt you.”
What Argentina bankrupt the UK?
Argentina owes the UK money-time we reeled in the debt.
@24 Slobaglob. At the present level? About 50 years. That's about the operational life for a warship. Argie warships are much less as they buy vessels from proper nations. Weapons systems can be constantly updated. Thus “ordinary” British nuclear-powered fleet submarines can launch Tomahawk Land Attack cruise missiles in addition to their torpedos. Reasonably, one British fleet submarine could destroy Buenos Aires town. Like it?
May 26th, 2013 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@31 Actually, they don't. It came as a horrific shock to China to Russia what the British were able to do in 1982. Even the US Navy said that retaking the Falklands was impossible. Did it though, didn't we? Because British troops are thick. Don't understand the meaning of the word “can't”. Or, alternatively, are the best there are. Yep, the best there are!
@35 Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. You couldn't “bankrupt” a corner shop in Accrington. You know what happens when you piss in the wind, don't you? Your piss goes all over your face. Or you could try crapping instead. Based on your disgusting actions on the Falklands in 1982, argieland and crap appear to have a considerable affinity.
I want you to understand that, at every opportunity, I will be pressing my government to destroy argieland. I am very keen on argies suffering horrendously throughout. Wounds by bullets, shrapnel, secondary damage, blast, heat, direct explosion, starvation, exhaustion. Radiation. Laser. Anything.
I especially want you to understand that I am looking for any attack on the Falkland Islands is met by total annihilation. Let's pick some figures for argie dead. 600, 6,000, 60,000, 600,000, 6,000,000, 16,000,000, 26,000,000, 36,000,000. Still not bothered. Can you understand? As far as I am concerned, argieland contains more than 41 million war criminals. Every one deserves to die.
@37
May 30th, 2013 - 05:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I did not mention Argentina. I said we are going to bankrupt you. Keep sending the money!
41 Tubby Teen Troll
May 30th, 2013 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I did not mention Argentina. I said we are going to bankrupt you. Keep sending the money!”
Well, if not Argentina, who is the mysterious “we”, the “League of Pimply One-Handed Typists of Mendoza”?
Really an odd statement.
#42
May 30th, 2013 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should know by now that it is the Royal “We” - not quite the Holy Trinity but heading in that direction. Having declared himself Pope, the next step will be deification or defecation, depending on his luck.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!