Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Britain

Britain and Argentina on collision course over Falklands

2006-09-25

Britain is careering towards another confrontation with Argentina over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, on the eve of the 25th anniversary of the 1982 conflict. The UK's new representative on the islands has issued a grim warning that "relations with the government of Argentina are now more difficult than we would wish" as he took up his position this month. Falklands governor Alan Huckle's warning comes two months after Scotland on Sunday revealed Britain had been forced to write to the United Nations restating its sovereignty over the islands, as Argentina escalates attempts to gain international support for its claim.

Officials have also written to the Organisation of American States (OAS), which has supported talks between Britain and Argentina to solve the 'Malvinas Islands' dispute peacefully. Amid increasing fever over the issue, the Argentine government has set up a congressional committee to review the status of the islands.

I take it the Argentinian government is having problems and the economy is tanking, so it's time to divert the attention of the home crowd.

Now Huckle has spoken candidly about a growing diplomatic gulf between the two nations, which threatens plans for reconciliation at a joint 25th anniversary service next year. Huckle used his swearing-in speech to confirm the downturn in relations over the islands, and to reissue a blunt declaration that the UK had no intention of entering negotiations over sovereignty. His comments follow revelations by the outgoing governor, Howard Pearce, that the British Embassy in Buenos Aires had received a record number of official protest notes on Falkland issues.

Posted by:Seafarious

#27 Ahem, the British need something to occupy them.
Straw: Britain must push US to resolve ME conflict

Posted by: gromgoru 2006-09-25 19:32

#26 a LOT more messy for the Argentinians

Indeedy.

Posted by: 6 2006-09-25 19:30

#25 prepared sub warfare could make any return to action a LOT more messy for the Argentinians. The Generals with the ribbons and sprockets won't be the ones drowning.

Posted by: Frank G 2006-09-25 19:09

#24 It would probably take less than ten minutes to identify strategic targets in the shape of oil distribution, the electrical grid, etc. around Buenos Aires which could be flattened in a variety of entertaining ways.

With nukes maybe, but the RAF only managed a few V Bomber raids staging out of Accesion Island to attack Stanley Airfield.... 1 bomber at a time. Doubtful they'd have tried to attack the mainland with airpower. Course they could have mined the hell out of the coastal water, that would have worked, but might have taken awhile.

Posted by: 6 2006-09-25 18:10

#23 The Argentine pilots fired their few Exocets at point blank range coming in right on the deck. Other sucess were achieved by dumb bombs dropped from so low they often didn't have time to fuse. Again good pilots. Piss poor infantry. Worse navy.

Posted by: 6 2006-09-25 18:04

#22 For all the talk about how it was touch-and-go last time the fact remains Britain decided to fight with one hand tied behind her back and a giant pillow wrapped around her fighting fist.

Any conflict with Argentina where the "exclusion zone" is not limited to British territorial waters but takes the form of a proper war with Argentine shipping is utterly insupportable for any Argentine government. It would probably take less than ten minutes to identify strategic targets in the shape of oil distribution, the electrical grid, etc. around Buenos Aires which could be flattened in a variety of entertaining ways. And any attempt to remove Falkland Islanders against their will could legitimately be declared a war crime and place the Argentine military beyond the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

And that's when you send in the Gurkhas.

Posted by: Flea 2006-09-25 18:02

#21 And the Rapier like Rapier.

Once the Marines and their ships were under SAM cover in San Carlos water it was all over. More screw ups happened, mainly due to over confidence I expect - but give a little credit to the Argentine Airforce, they could fly.

Posted by: 6 2006-09-25 17:59

#20 My point is the only way they could have won is if they timed the game when the Brits couldn't play. From the timeline they were pretty close at that, if they'd timed it themselves instead of letting a bunch of scrap-metal workers jumpstart the war they would have had a better chance.

The Argies were so bad they had to land jets at different fields from where they took off in order to hide the losses from their own pilots.

The story I like best though is when the Para learned how to say grenade in Spanish and would yell it up to the Argie trenchline and watch the Argies jump out of the trench in fear.

Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-09-25 17:55

#19 As I recall, we can thank the French for what few naval aviation successes the Argies had.

Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-25 17:55

#18 Among the other reasons the Argies lost:

1) their army was all draftees, the Brits were all volunteers

2) the Argie army was poorly trained, poorly equipped, and poorly led

3) the Argie officer corps wouldn't fight

4) lack of food and provisions on the islands

5) no decent air cover

6) no artillery brought to the island, the Argies didn't even have heavy mortars

7) bad comm gear for the Argies, excellent for the Brits

8) Argies lacked espirit de corps -- they simply weren't willing to fight. The Brits were their usual bloody-minded selves on the battlefield.

Posted by: Steve White 2006-09-25 17:29

#17 I believe it was Admiral Sandy Woodward's book that mentioned the unlikelyhood of sustained carrier operations in the South Atlantic winter which is so brutal even American supercarriers would be bouncing around so much as to prevent any takeoffs (probably where the F-14 data mentioned above came from).

The Harrier is fine once it's in the air, but to have enough fuel for combat operations the harrier needs a short takeoff using a ramp, something that would be impossible with the rough seas.

I also understand the south atlantic winter is the worst in the world, we just don't hear much about it because there is generally no reason for shipping in those areas during the winter.

It could be done. Harriers can work off an improvised airfield on the Falklands themselves. but the logistics of moving the fuel and personal to keep combat operations going.

Of course they could just say the Gurkas are going and watch the Argies surrender rather than face them. Seemed to save a bit of time last go around.

Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-09-25 17:27

#16 Someone give Buenos Aires a call. With Tony Blairs assistance in the ME, if he just so happens to call upon the US to enforce the NATO commitment, you'd think Bush would decline? It's one thing for the Argies to face an ad-hoc formation of Brits, its another thing to face a full blown American Carrier and Amphib group steam in the South Atlantic. And considering we have enough on our plate, it is a distraction that is not going to be humorous.

And yes, the Argie economy is in the pits because they won't give up their dead end policies and programs.

Posted by: Snusing Shater6913 2006-09-25 15:57

#15
Fact is the Argentines would have won if they had attacked during the Winter (Southern Hemisphere winter that is) when conditions are so bad carriers cannot operate.

I remember the following sentence from a "biography" of the Harrier: "Its VTOL capabilities allow it to operate in weather conditions where even F14 Tomcats and A6 Crusaders have to remain grounded".

Argies attacked in March (Spetember in Northen Hemisphere terms, but most battles took place in
May and June (November and December in Northern Hemisphere Terms).

Argentinian's best asset was to have much more air support at hand and that is nullified in bad weather. Also while bad weather would have hampered British landings, once the British set foot it favours the side who is best trained and equipped

Posted by: JFM 2006-09-25 15:48

#14 Hey, it worked so well for Argentina last time.

Blair may be no Thatcher, but Bush is no Reagan. I could see us assisting the Brits if the Argies try anything. Israel would be another alliance, since the Argies still have a few bombings to account for.

Posted by: Chuck Simmins 2006-09-25 15:37

#13 British carrier crews operate in the North Sea year-round; the waters off of the Falklands aren't any worse than the conditions the Brits face in the North Sea in the Atlantic storm season. As a matter of fact, the worst year-round sea conditions in the world exist right off the northern coast of Oregon : that is the location that the US and other coast guards train in for extreme sea conditions.

Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-09-25 13:34

#12 I don't know. I thought the British carriers, and the harriers they carried, were capable of operating in weather that would shut down other carriers?

Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2006-09-25 13:14

#11 Fact is the Argentines would have won if they had attacked during the Winter (Southern Hemisphere winter that is) when conditions are so bad carriers cannot operate. They would have had months to politely pack the citizens back to England making it politically difficult for Thatcher and others to justify recapturing the rocks when the seas calmed down.

British got lucky.

I would guess the Argies learned there lesson about timing by now.

Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-09-25 13:04

#10 On a related note, Spain requested the UN look into the return of its colonies in South and Central America.

Posted by: RWV 2006-09-25 12:55

#9 Sovereignty over that cold piece of rock carries sovereignty over a large area of sedimentary basin around it, and that basin just might contain oil, which at recent prices might be worth chasing after. The last confrontation was during the last period of high oil prices.

Posted by: Glenmore 2006-09-25 12:51

#8 There's 4 million Argies there already?

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-25 12:41

#7 4 million sheep Mojo.

Posted by: 6 2006-09-25 12:37

#6 Didn't the Brits before the last dust-up give the residents the choice of staying with Britain or going to the Argies?

Posted by: Cheaderhead 2006-09-25 10:45

#5 The Brits won with grit last time. Their capabilities have decreased since then. And Tony Blair's successor is not Margaret Thatcher. Might be a good time to test him, especially if it distracts the natives from the Bolibarian successes.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-09-25 10:31

#4 You think they would have learned the first time they got their asses kicked...

Posted by: DarthVader 2006-09-25 10:30

#3 Somebody please explain why anyone wants that cold piece of rock.

Posted by: mojo 2006-09-25 10:29

#2 So when does Chavez put in his sulfurous words?

Posted by: Jackal 2006-09-25 10:11

#1 Time to pull out the Maggie shirts w/the phrase, "Don't cry for me Argentina...."

Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-09-25 00:20

00:00