DEAL!
No we just need to convince everybody else in both countries and we are set. 
If there turns out to be oil down there, there are lots of possibilities for mutually beneficial cooperation with Argentina: a port and refinery, revenue sharing, whatever. But that would have to be contingent on the Argentinian government giving up the tedious and erroneous claim to the islands. Face it, the last time the issue was contested, Argentina lost.
They would need English, French, and Southie.
The Falkland Islands (fk) have their own ISO 3166 Country Code ? :dubious:
Well, I guess that settles that then.
Another flareup of tensions between the UK and Argentina: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/07/argentinian-leader-plans-big-announcement-amid-falklands-tensions/?hpt=hp_t3
The Argentinian government has always treated Kelpers as if they don’t exist.
If they really want any sort of say they need to woo them with reckless abandon: free trade, tax free There are some superhot chicks in Argentina that would soften many hearts (while hardening other things) in an effort to have good realtions (My wife informs me of similarly good looking “gauchos”, but that’s not for me to say.)
If Cristina hardens her position against Falkanders, she loses even the tiny support she might get.
I said. Not a word about Falklanders inCristina’s message.
It’s so tedious.
I have to say, the MHS Dauntless is one *ugly *ship. It looks like an angry garden gnome.
This is just childish:
Legit question here:
The UK doesn’t have any aircraft carriers anymore, if the airfield on the falklands is bombed or otherwise disabled, all the UK can do is fly sorties from the Ascension Island RAF base. Thats 6000 km away. That fact alone seems to be a pretty major sign that a real physical conflict would play out very differently this time. Unless the US actually sent a carrier as air support for a UK fleet, their ships are going to be pretty vulnerable with extremely limited air support.
That’s my feeling also. One ship, 4 fighters and 600 or so troops are a fine tripwire. The UK has no response except submarines though. We don’t have much of a fleet and we no longer have a sea based air capability of any significance.
We just have to hope the Argentine military remains as incompetent as it was first time round.
The Falklands are British and wants to remain so. Argentina just needs to get over it no matter how much oil they might like to get their mitts on.
Looking at the relevant wiki page - it seems 4 modern fighters probably can sweep the entire Argentine air force from the sky. Threat downgraded to:
‘All mouth, no trousers.’
Without carriers, the Falklands are indefensible, unless the UK wants to station a couple thousand troops, SAM, AA, and maybe 10 airplanes. If the UK had gone on with their plan in the 1970s to ditch their carriers the could not have fought effectively.
30 years ago the Argentinians could’ve pulled something much more serious if they had just planned it a bit better. For example, many bombs droppped from A-4 simply went through the UK ship without exploding because the were desinged to be dropped from higher altitude. They didn’t extend the main runway in Falkaland so theu planes had to fly a long distance and could only fight 10 minutes. They didn’t have good maps, they sent badly trained, poorly-equiped soldiers (one soldier died of hunger, in an island full of sheep).
This is, by the way, my favourite picture of the Falklans war.
Very true. How they managed to lose I don’t know. Complacency and under-estimating UK will and military professionalism I guess (not to mention the effectiveness of the new sidewinders the USA gave us).
But it seems the Argentine air superiority capability is about 15 of the same obsolete Mirages and Israeli Mirage knock-offs that were used last time. Against one of the best air defence ships in the world and four state of the art Typhoons - I don’t think so.
I seriously doubt that Argentina will ever try to take the islands by force again, as I said upthread, ours is a seriously UN-warlike country, the mentality needed for a war is simply not present, to most Argentinians war is a strange thing foreigners do.
Besides the Argentinian Armed Forces are seriously underbudgeted, if the budget for the army starts growing, it would be trivially easy for the UK to start basing more troops and planes in the islands before the Argentinian army is ready to attack, necessitating more money and so on.
I reckon you’re seriously exaggerating the amount of force Argentina could put into an invasion. Realistically, half that number of typhoons, and one modern ship, means Argentina could not invade.
You don’t need soldiers unless you’re intending to fight a ground war, and the simple step to avoiding that is to sink an invading force before it gets there.
I imagine the RAF and RN are loving this though. Their budget requests just got one almighty supporting argument.
The Monroe Doctrine works both ways. 
Yep.
I’m all for no war, being a peaceable liberal type but I do support the current islander’s right to self-determination over some nebulous claim stemming from ancient history.
There’s whole great big chunks of the world that used to belong to Britain. They don’t now and we’re over it. Time for Argentina to get with the same programme.
Even if Argentina did succeed in seizing the islands they have no anti submarine capability, while the British submarines are all cruise-missiled up.
Hopefully all this empty sabre rattling and stupid anti-colonial rhetoric will die down before people talk themselves into doing something stupid. Take it from me - no UK Govt would consider handing back the islands. Not going to happen. Especially with oil in play.
Agreed, it won’t happen.
I implied that worst-case scenario where Argentina goes all the way, which it won’t.
If the Falklands war means anything is that the Monroe doctrine means wahtever the sitting US presidents wants.