• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Falklands

Status
Not open for further replies.

WestCoast

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,665
Location
South Yorkshire
I was reading through an interesting feature on the BBC's website about the upcoming 30 year anniversary of the Falklands War. It presents an interesting perspective on the mood in Argentina about the issue.

Some extracts from www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16858268

Falkland tensions grow ahead of invasion anniversary
By Vladimir Hernandez
BBC News, Buenos Aires

Tensions over the Falkland Islands have been increasing ahead of the 30th anniversary of Argentina's invasion in 1982.
The latest escalation was prompted by the decision of Mercosur, a South American trading bloc, to close its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag in December.
When British Prime Minister David Cameron then accused Argentina of "colonialism", the Argentine Senate passed a motion condemning his comments.
There were also demonstrations - with the Union flag burning - outside the British embassy in Buenos Aires.
Then the Royal Navy announced that it was sending the destroyer HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic, off the Falklands.
The British government said the move was routine, but it will do little to ease tensions in the region.
s
The status of the islands, known as the Malvinas in Argentina, is still a very sensitive issue for Buenos Aires.
In the capital, it is common to see posters highlighting the country's claim to the islands. Many Argentine cities also have monuments to the war, in which more than 600 soldiers died.
It is not uncommon either to see youngsters with tattoos of a Falklands map in the colours of the Argentine flag.
At a political level, feelings are no less intense.
National politics may be extremely polarised, but there is consensus between the government and the opposition over the country's claim to the islands.
"It is the centrepiece of Argentina's foreign policy," says Jorge Battaglino, lecturer in international relations at Torcuato di Tella University in Buenos Aires....Ibarometro's director Pablo Lopez also says that there is growing support for the government's more aggressive approach.
"Since 2009, backing for the government's strategy has jumped from about 40% to 67%," he says.
A military government was in power in Argentina at the time of the 1982 invasion.

Mr Kirchner and his wife Cristina - the current president - grew up in the Argentine Patagonia, in the south of the country, where the issue runs high because of the relative proximity to the disputed territory.
There is some debate in Argentina as to whether this explains the government's interest in the issue.
Some, like Mr Palermo, say that the official position is just an accurate representation of public opinion.
He says President Fernandez may also be using the Falklands to deflect attention from domestic issues.
Not everyone agrees.
"Why would the president do that? She has just been re-elected with strong support, the economy is growing and her popularity is high," says Mr Battaglino.
"It is David Cameron who is trying to deflect attention from domestic issues," says Mr Boron.
"The UK's economy is no better than Argentina's. It was not Buenos Aires that had social unrest and riots last year, but London," he adds.
The Argentine government believes the recent support from other countries in the region to their claim to the islands may have improved the prospects of Britain agreeing to open negotiations on the issue.
But so far, from the Foreign Office in London, there has been no indication of any change in the British stance.

My only thought is why won't the Argentinians consider the people that live there and what they want? I realise they were put there by the British crown, but that was in the distant past and it doesn't void their right to choose who they want to belong to.

Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
30th :p

I suspect they don't see the Islanders' decision as binding since they're a puppet of the UK government. Would you support Finland if they wanted Karelia back off Russia?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,272
Location
Yorks
Ah, so they're burning flags now. The last resort of anyone not capable of mustering a coherent argument (which is pretty apt, bearing in mind the Argentine "claim").
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, eh, mr. Cameroon? A Conservative government comes to power, and the first thing it does is enormous cuts to the Royal Navy; the Argentinian government sees an opportunity to whip up a bit of nationalist fervour.
And now...

Argentina actually has a fairly tenuous claim on the Malvinas; the Dutch (who discovered it first) and the French (who set up a colony briefly) have a stronger claim. Argentina, in fact, never did have any claim on them, as the colony that was established was established by Spain, before Argentina became independent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History_to_1982

Anyway, why does Argentina want it so keenly? just because that's the nearest large landmass to the islands? Could there be another reason ... ?

A 1995 agreement between the UK and Argentina had set the terms for exploitation of offshore resources including oil reserves[102] as geological surveys had shown there might be up to 60 billion barrels (9.5 billion cubic metres) of oil under the sea bed surrounding the islands.[103] However, in 2007 Argentina unilaterally withdrew from the agreement.[104] In response, Falklands Oil and Gas Limited has signed an agreement with BHP Billiton to investigate the potential exploitation of oil reserves.[105] Climatic conditions of the southern seas mean that exploitation will be a difficult task, though economically viable, and the continuing sovereignty dispute with Argentina is hampering progress.[106]

In February 2010, exploratory drilling for oil was begun by Desire Petroleum,[107] but the results from the first test well were disappointing.[108] Two months later, on 6 May 2010, Rockhopper Exploration announced that "it may have struck oil".[109] Subsequent tests showed it to be a commercially viable find,[110] an appraisal project was launched [111] and on 14th September 2011 Rockhopper Exploration announced plans are under way for oil production to commence in 2016, through the use of Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) technology.[112]
 

SS4

Established Member
Joined
30 Jan 2011
Messages
8,589
Location
Birmingham
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, eh, mr. Cameroon? A Conservative government comes to power, and the first thing it does is enormous cuts to the Royal Navy; the Argentinian government sees an opportunity to whip up a bit of nationalist fervour.

You missed the ending - A war to clear them off the islands is successful and euphoria gives the Conservative government a landslide at the polls.

An external enemy has been used since time immemorial to paper over cracks at home
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I was 15 when the Flakland War began. I can still remember the disbelief that British soil had been invaded, as well as soem people getting a little confused and thinking that the Argentinians had taken voer some islands to the north of Scotland.

I am sure that the Argentinian government is only too aware of the cuts in the Royal Navy and our other armed services that have taken place since 1982 (by both political parties). I hope that this does not convince them to try again.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,272
Location
Yorks
Indeed. The current mood is certainly a warning against allowing another HMS Endurance withdrawal situation to develop.
 

Hydro

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2007
Messages
2,204
An external enemy has been used since time immemorial to paper over cracks at home

Which is why, incidentally, the Argentine "government" of 1982 invaded in the first place.

The UK does have a duty of care, if you want to call it that, to the islanders.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,272
Location
Yorks
So THEY want OUR oil do they? Makes a change to be that way round..

Well yes. but it is still OURs

It's interesting that in the whole history of the British Empire, the Falklands are about the only territory that we actually have a decent claim of being the first to settle (I know the French might have been around at some stage, but then again they've got Keregulen so it evens out).

The point is that even the Spanish couldn't be bothered to settle the Falklands, yet their descendants, who have a fairly spurious claim to be "indigenous" to their land in Argentina, bearing in mind the fate of the actual indigenous people in that area, have the cheek to describe the Falklanders as being colonialists !
 
Last edited:

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,856
Location
UK
I am sure that the Argentinian government is only too aware of the cuts in the Royal Navy and our other armed services that have taken place since 1982 (by both political parties). I hope that this does not convince them to try again.

I think we're still somewhat better equipped than they are, plus they don't have the same type of Government that is likely to be silly enough to invade again. I suspect most of what is going on now is just both sides showing strength to their own people - while all the real stuff goes on through the regular diplomatic channels
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,069
Location
Redcar
If anyone's interested I've always found this paper to pretty much totally debunk Argentina's claim to the Islands.

As for going back down there and retaking them, I think if that has to happen then something has gone very very wrong. The plan is by my understanding far more along the lines of not letting them take the islands in the first place we have around 500 troops down there (though admittedly not all infantry it's certainly a lot more than the 60 odd Royal Marines of 1982), 4 Typhoons (which has no parallel on that entire continent) and the Royal Navy normally has a ship around there (as well as HMS Endurance). We're a lot better placed to defend them than we were first time round.

If however we did have to retake them I think in some ways we're in a much worse position than we were in 1982 mainly because we don't have any fast jet naval aviation any more. The only way a task force could defend itself from air attack (and provide air cover for the troops ashore) is with their own missile systems (which admittedly are a hell of a lot more capable than last time), there won't be any Harriers providing air cover or close air support any more. Having said that we're probably far better placed to actually land the troops in the first place with capabilities we didn't have the first time (the LPH HMS Ocean) and enhanced capabilities elsewhere (the Albion class LPDs). Though of course our ace in the hole just as it was last time is our nuclear attack submarines. Argentina has no real counter for our SSNs (either Trafalgars or Astutes) and with them we could make their navy's life a living hell. If you really want to send a message telling them to back off, just have HMS Astute pop up for an unannounced port visit in Stanley, then vanish back into the deep blue.

I think however the most comforting thought is that Argentina is in no real position to do anything anyway. Their air force is still using either the same jets as last time round (and fewer of them) or upgrades of the same jets (whilst the RN has upgraded it's air defences). Their navy on the other hand is smaller, has mostly the same equipment as last time and very limited amphibious lift capability. I doubt they could pull off a successful invasion even if they wanted to (and I'm far from convinced that they really do want a war) and certainly they couldn't do it without it become very obvious very quickly (causing a rather hasty reinforcement of the islands defences).

Right well that post ran went on rather more than I intended to! My apologies :oops:
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,609
I think we're still somewhat better equipped than they are, plus they don't have the same type of Government that is likely to be silly enough to invade again.

The plan is by my understanding far more along the lines of not letting them take the islands in the first place we have around 500 troops down there (though admittedly not all infantry it's certainly a lot more than the 60 odd Royal Marines of 1982), 4 Typhoons (which has no parallel on that entire continent) and the Royal Navy normally has a ship around there (as well as HMS Endurance). We're a lot better placed to defend them than we were first time round.

I suspect an attack submarine has already shown itself in the South Atlantic, the deployment of HMS Dauntless south, on an unannounced "regular deployment" will also send a message. For me the game changer is that (a) we'll know exactly whats going on with modern communications, rather than last time where London were unsure if an invasion had taken place and (b) Tomahawk. I'm sure any invasion fleet mounted by Argentina would soon return to port with the application of a couple of BGM109s to Buenos Aires.
 

Schnellzug

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2011
Messages
2,926
Location
Evercreech Junction
You missed the ending - A war to clear them off the islands is successful and euphoria gives the Conservative government a landslide at the polls.

An external enemy has been used since time immemorial to paper over cracks at home

SO this has been engineered by the Cameron regime, same as Galtieri was deliberately provoked into invading by mrs. T's cutbacks? These people are diabolically cunning, I tell you.
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
I suspect an attack submarine has already shown itself in the South Atlantic, the deployment of HMS Dauntless south, on an unannounced "regular deployment" will also send a message. For me the game changer is that (a) we'll know exactly whats going on with modern communications, rather than last time where London were unsure if an invasion had taken place and (b) Tomahawk. I'm sure any invasion fleet mounted by Argentina would soon return to port with the application of a couple of BGM109s to Buenos Aires.

I think they're airfields might be in major trouble. Not quite as much as they would have been before the cluster-bomb ban, but Tomahawks are still a very effective way to shut down an airfield. Certainly a lot more efficient than sending individual Vulcans down with heavy tanker support.

The biggest problem, though, will be getting the fleet close. We could isolate the islands from the rest of the world, possbly even blockade the River Plate if we wanted to. Power projection is not easy without aircraft. Four years ago, I reckon we should have sent the Ark Royal on a visit to Australia and New Zealand - via Port Stanley. The Americans were sending carriers to the eastern Med via the Libyan coast all the time. They always stayed just over 12 miles away.
 

deltic1989

Established Member
Joined
21 Sep 2010
Messages
1,483
Location
Nottingham
Certainly a lot more efficient than sending individual Vulcans down with heavy tanker support.

My Dad was in the RAF at the time the Black Buck raids as they were called were conducted, his clain to fame is that he was in charge of the ground crew that prepared XM607 a RAF Waddington. In his words it was a £5million V-sign i.e no real strategic value but proved to the Argies on the islands that we could hit them with more than a couple of 500 pounders. Apparently at the time they got paranoid that a Vulcan could make it to the mainland.

This time around we are much better prepared on the islands than we were last time with greater troop numbers and the presence of intercepter fighters and rapier anti-air missile batteries. In recent news word has it that the Navy have sent a Trafalgar class submarine down that way with Spanish speaking CISs on board to moniter radio traffic in the area, and with Dauntless in the neigbourhood too this is likely to act as a deterrent but if the Argies are mad enough to try anything then the defences we have in the area includeind the sub and the destroyer, can hold the fort until re-enforcements can arrive.
Like I said in my previous post though there seems to be a lot of sabre rattleing and willy waving going on at the moment. By sending a sub and a destroyer we are basically saying "Come on then if you think you're hard enough".
 

anthony263

Established Member
Joined
19 Aug 2008
Messages
6,892
Location
South Wales
I have to praise the governement for not backing down over the faklands, besides if the people living on the islands want to remain birtish then that is their democratic right.

Too be honest Argentina and their neighbours should keep their traps shut.

I would like to see argentina try something only for our military to send them packing once again.
 

12CSVT

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2010
Messages
2,611
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it, eh, mr. Cameroon? A Conservative government comes to power, and the first thing it does is enormous cuts to the Royal Navy; the Argentinian government sees an opportunity to whip up a bit of nationalist fervour.
And now...

Also, in 1981 the British government were reluctant to give the Falkland Islanders British citizenship.

Although not directly related to the Falkland Islands, it is ironic that many inhabitants of the Patagonia region of Argentina descend from Welsh settlers.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I think we're still somewhat better equipped than they are, plus they don't have the same type of Government that is likely to be silly enough to invade again. I suspect most of what is going on now is just both sides showing strength to their own people - while all the real stuff goes on through the regular diplomatic channels

I think you are correct.

If anyone's interested I've always found this paper to pretty much totally debunk Argentina's claim to the Islands.

As for going back down there and retaking them, I think if that has to happen then something has gone very very wrong. The plan is by my understanding far more along the lines of not letting them take the islands in the first place we have around 500 troops down there (though admittedly not all infantry it's certainly a lot more than the 60 odd Royal Marines of 1982), 4 Typhoons (which has no parallel on that entire continent) and the Royal Navy normally has a ship around there (as well as HMS Endurance). We're a lot better placed to defend them than we were first time round.

If however we did have to retake them I think in some ways we're in a much worse position than we were in 1982 mainly because we don't have any fast jet naval aviation any more. The only way a task force could defend itself from air attack (and provide air cover for the troops ashore) is with their own missile systems (which admittedly are a hell of a lot more capable than last time), there won't be any Harriers providing air cover or close air support any more. Having said that we're probably far better placed to actually land the troops in the first place with capabilities we didn't have the first time (the LPH HMS Ocean) and enhanced capabilities elsewhere (the Albion class LPDs). Though of course our ace in the hole just as it was last time is our nuclear attack submarines. Argentina has no real counter for our SSNs (either Trafalgars or Astutes) and with them we could make their navy's life a living hell. If you really want to send a message telling them to back off, just have HMS Astute pop up for an unannounced port visit in Stanley, then vanish back into the deep blue.

I think however the most comforting thought is that Argentina is in no real position to do anything anyway. Their air force is still using either the same jets as last time round (and fewer of them) or upgrades of the same jets (whilst the RN has upgraded it's air defences). Their navy on the other hand is smaller, has mostly the same equipment as last time and very limited amphibious lift capability. I doubt they could pull off a successful invasion even if they wanted to (and I'm far from convinced that they really do want a war) and certainly they couldn't do it without it become very obvious very quickly (causing a rather hasty reinforcement of the islands defences).

Right well that post ran went on rather more than I intended to! My apologies :oops:

I don't think they want a war, they didn't come out of the last one very well.
I don't think though, that we would be able to retake them if they were ever lost, but the strategy following the last war seems to be to defend them so they are not lost in the first place.

I suspect an attack submarine has already shown itself in the South Atlantic, the deployment of HMS Dauntless south, on an unannounced "regular deployment" will also send a message. For me the game changer is that (a) we'll know exactly whats going on with modern communications, rather than last time where London were unsure if an invasion had taken place and (b) Tomahawk. I'm sure any invasion fleet mounted by Argentina would soon return to port with the application of a couple of BGM109s to Buenos Aires.

I assume that if Tomahawks were ever deployed they would be aused against military airfields, naval bases and other strategic targets that wouldd isrupt the enemy' capability to mount operations.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,069
Location
Redcar
I don't think they want a war, they didn't come out of the last one very well.
I don't think though, that we would be able to retake them if they were ever lost, but the strategy following the last war seems to be to defend them so they are not lost in the first place.

Can't argue with that really as it fits my views almost perfectly.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,609
I don't think they want a war, they didn't come out of the last one very well.
I don't think though, that we would be able to retake them if they were ever lost, but the strategy following the last war seems to be to defend them so they are not lost in the first place.

Absolutely. I think the Foreign Office will be of the mindset that they must not let themselves fall into the trap they fell into last time. The FCO has a long memory for things like this, and the current military strategy in the South Atlantic is very different to 30 years ago.

I assume that if Tomahawks were ever deployed they would be aused against military airfields, naval bases and other strategic targets that would disrupt the enemy' capability to mount operations.

I make the same assumption, with the addition of command and control facilities such as the Argentine Ministry of Defense.
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,047
I always had my suspicions about 1982, the Labour govt in the 70s had seen them off by sending a nuclear attack sub.
Remember the "Thatcher Project" was in deep poo by 1981, a lot was at stake for the people behind her and desperate men can sometimes take desperate measures.
They practically put out the red carpet for the "Argies" and they obligingly walked down the garden path!
Sorry this is all nonsense, there is no such things as conspiracy, all actions by rulers have always been open and honest and it's time for me to get my tinfoil hat!:lol:
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
You can claim anything from hindsight. Woodrow Wilson practically decided the WWII would happen by setting up parts of the Treaty of Verseilles in such a way that a few people saw a second war as an attractive option. Foch was all for carving Germany up into its constituent states.

Still, plenty of unpopular leaders have started wars. 90% of them lost, 50% fell from power and 20% ended up dead as a result. Since the Industral Revolution, the vast majority of wars have been lost by the side that started them.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
35,391
Location
A typical commuter-belt part of north-west England
The Americans at the time of the Falkland Islands crisis were only too happy to support a right-wing Argentinian military junta as a bulwark against left-wing influence in South America and a reading of the British and American positions prior to the British Task Force setting off shows how much pressure the Americans tried to put on Britain. America now sees Venezuela coupled with Cuba as being an left-wing alliance far nearer to home.

The political situation in Argentina these days is somewhat a different proposition to the days when they invaded the Falkland Islands.
 

kylemore

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,047
Since the Industral Revolution, the vast majority of wars have been lost by the side that started them.

Depends whether you mean the side that "started" them or the side that "really started" them!
As one of Wilson's successors (FDR) said if something happens in politics (and what is war but a slightly more robust politics!) you can be sure it was meant to happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top