| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| Caribbean-Latin America | ||
| Argentina lays new claim to Falklands | ||
| 2008-04-03 | ||
Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands, which remain in British hands after a 1982 war, is ''inalienable'', President Cristina Kirchner says. ''The sovereign claim to the Malvinas Islands (Argentina's name for them) is inalienable,'' she said in a speech marking the 26th anniversary of Argentina's ill-fated invasion of the two islands 480km offshore. The April 2, 1982 invasion prompted the British prime minister at the time, Margaret Thatcher, to deploy naval forces to retake the Falklands.
| ||
| Posted by:Fred |
| #22 If the British want to keep them, they'll keep them. No problem. I'd suspect there is now, and will be for the foreseeable future, a British Trafalgar-class nuclear attack sub someplace within a week's sailing time of the Falklands. Its torps and Tomahawks would put paid to any attack convoy the Argies could mount and the Argies can't manage a sufficiently strong airborne attack to take the islands The real question is whether Gordo Brown has the balls to tell the Argies to sod off. |
| Posted by: Pancho Elmeck8414 2008-04-03 18:43 |
| #21 I wouldn't want to run bombers through a fighter CAP. The Brits tried Tornadoes (not that they have the range, assuming the Brits lose the Falklands airfields) armed with JP-233s in the Gulf War I. They got their butts shot off and had to go high level. And back then the Brits did not have to worry about enemy fighters. The reality is that, by themselves, Britain has few alternatives against Argentina determined to take the Falklands. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-04-03 17:21 |
| #20 JP233. If they could caravan a bunch of Vulcans down there last go-round, they should be able to do it now with the Tornado. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-04-03 17:11 |
| #19 Runways are easy for a first world nation to repair. Third world nations are not as organized and potholes can linger for decades. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-04-03 17:01 |
| #18 Runways are easy to repair. The only usable weapons the Brits have to counter are sub lanched Tomahawks. Finding the planes (even w/ US spy satellite support) and destroying them before they are moved is not easy. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-04-03 16:19 |
| #17 The best planes in the world need runways and I believe the British navy could take the runways and fuel and potentially many planes out with sub launched missiles making any air operations very difficult. It gets down to political will. I don't know if the Brits have it in regards to the Falklands at this point. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-04-03 16:07 |
| #16 If the Argentinians upgraded to a squadron or two of SU-30s they would control the airspace over the Falklands and do what they want. The Brits couldn't take it back by themselves unless unless they underwent a massive rearmament, which I don't think they would. The spanner in this plan is the US, who now owe the British for their support since Sept. 2001. And I don't the Americans are in any mood to take any crap from down south. |
| Posted by: ed 2008-04-03 14:35 |
| #15 The government has destroyed both the agricultural and beef industries by taxation and redistribution policies. The farmers are on strike and Argentina will no longer be the breadbasket of South America. The famous and hearty beef industry has been cripled by rules and regulations that have made Uraguay the leading exporter of beef. This is all from an article listed in Instapudit which I am to ignorant to post. |
| Posted by: bman 2008-04-03 14:17 |
| #14 I think the Brits could take the Falklands now but it would be bloodier. Exclusion zones would be out and Argentine Naval vessels in port or not would be sun, and military airbases would have their runways cratered. However, oil or not, I don't think the British politicians have the will to retake the islands if the are taken and I think the Argentines are betting on that if they make a move. What you might see is a transfer of ownership with the Brits leasing back the property. This would allow the Brits to remove the military presence and the cost thereof, as well as any future threat at the expense of some honor (which Labor rarely considers of value anyway). It allows the Argentines to truly claim the islands and get lease money as well as possible cut of the oil revenue. Win/win sort of. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-04-03 13:48 |
| #13 The Royal Navy is too weak to do anything like it did in 82. The Ark Royal is available with only 2 harriers on it. The Illustrious is in the Indian Ocean with another 2 harriers. They only have 6 Type 45 ships and have reduced overall combatants by 54% since 87. The Argies can give them a real run for their money this time around. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2008-04-03 13:00 |
| #12 The Argentines won't be attacking a defenceless group of Islets this time. The Brits have folks stationed there now.. 3 Paras and a Boston Whaler, the HMS Chub. |
| Posted by: RD 2008-04-03 12:53 |
| #11 And mine their ports. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-04-03 12:49 |
| #10 Play it smart this time and start by laying waste to the Argentine airfields on the mainland, huh? |
| Posted by: Chief Running Gag 2008-04-03 12:46 |
| #9 brits still got some vulcans around? |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2008-04-03 11:05 |
| #8 Of course, regardless of the steadfastness of the government appartchiks in the anti-Jihard work, London could always ask kindly for the invocation of the NATO charter [even more so now with the demonstrated deployment of NATO assets to Afghanistan as a precedent] for aid. Someone needs to remind Ms. Kirchner that a US Carrier Taskforce is far more lethal and destructive than what the Brits sent the last time around. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-04-03 11:02 |
| #7 The Hell with the Brits |
| Posted by: Captain Charles H. Barnard 2008-04-03 10:55 |
| #6 Yeah, I'm thinking that even now, the British could take them. About a dozen corvettes and destroyers, and a couple subs. They'd get shredded. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2008-04-03 10:22 |
| #5 And that is also the reason the UK would fight for the islands. The Establishment has no loyalty, no honor and no sense of duty but it knows where the cash comes from. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-04-03 10:16 |
| #4 I believe this may have something to do with it - ...the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands could soon be among the richest people in the world. In the year in which the islands commemorate the 25th anniversary of Argentina's invasion, a handful of exploration firms believe they are on the verge of striking it big. Follow the money. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2008-04-03 09:34 |
| #3 There an election coming up in Argentina? |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2008-04-03 09:33 |
| #2 If the Argies make a play for them the Brits will fold like a cheap suit and go whining to the UN. End result? Falklands renamed Malvinas. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2008-04-03 08:58 |
| #1 I have to wonder if the Brits would bother to fight to take them back at this point. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-04-03 00:59 |