Second Falklands War?

[Information Analyst]

From the good old WP place;

I suspect even a refitted and, importantly, fully professional Argentinian force would think twice before engaging any of this. The only hope would be for a 'Pearl Harbour' like attack, which given the surveillance kit that's probably in place, is unlikely...to say the least. This time the UK forces would only have to hold the (enlarged) airport long enough to allow for airborne reinforcements to arrive, no three week trek through the South Atlantic.

On the subject of the attack submarines, it's worth noting that during an earlier invasion threat, then Prime Minister Jim Callaghan ordered one sub into the area and made sure through diplomatic channel that Argentinians knew it was there. It was enough to put them off and the threat receeded. A few years later, the declared intentions of the Thatcher government to withdraw the only Royal Navy surface vessel assigned to the area was seen as a green flag to the military junta, or at least an indication that Britain wasn't really interested in defending the islands.

Heavy irony.

 

[Information Analyst]

"Good guys" doing it (British bombing Italian harbour, Israel bombing Arab airfields): great tactics, good show.
"Bad guys" doing it (Japanese at Pearl Harbour): cowardly sneak attack.

Although in the case of Taranto, Britain had at least been officially and unambiuously at war with Italy for quite some time.

 

[richardm]

Mind you, a decent war might shore up popularity for Cristina (wasn't that why Maggie did it in the 82 recession?).

Yep, you can't beat a bit of "Let's show these foreigners what's what" to rally support.

Unless they don't win of course.

"Negotiated Settlement required after treacherous foreign intervention leads to glorious retreat", you mean?

 

[ohms]

I don't see a shooting war happening any time soon, Argentina currently lacks the capability to deal with the flight of Typhoons and Rapier battery protecting the Falklands airspace.

 

[Bikewer]

I just watched an analysis of the Falklands war on the Military channel, and it was apparently even a nastier bit of business than the media portrayed at the time.

I don't imagine the Argentinians have been able to significantly upgrade their military resources in the interim, while as ohms points out the British have upgraded defenses on the islands....

 

[quadraginta]

I'm just a bit curious as to what other sort of sneak attacks there are, and what exactly sets a "cowardly" one separate from those. .

"Good guys" doing it (British bombing Italian harbour, Israel bombing Arab airfields): great tactics, good show.
"Bad guys" doing it (Japanese at Pearl Harbour): cowardly sneak attack.

Not that it really matters a great deal, but the quote you have attributed to ravdin there was actually made by me in post #8, in response to a statement by ravdin in post #5.

 

[dudalb]

"Good guys" doing it (British bombing Italian harbour, Israel bombing Arab airfields): great tactics, good show.
"Bad guys" doing it (Japanese at Pearl Harbour): cowardly sneak attack.

Uh, Italy and the UK were at war at the time of Taranto.

 

[Giz]

Mind you, a decent war might shore up popularity for Cristina (wasn't that why Maggie did it in the 82 recession?). Unless they don't win of course.

Was the timing fortuitous for Thatcher? Yes, of course. However, it is stretching things to think that Thatcher wouldn't have responded militarily to the occupation of UK territory regardless of the popularity of her government at the time.

So no, it "wasn't why Maggie did it in the 82 recession".

 

[quadraginta]

"Good guys" doing it (British bombing Italian harbour, Israel bombing Arab airfields): great tactics, good show.
"Bad guys" doing it (Japanese at Pearl Harbour): cowardly sneak attack.

Although in the case of Taranto, Britain had at least been officially and unambiuously at war with Italy for quite some time.

Uh, Italy and the UK were at war at the time of Taranto.

I wonder sometimes about the niceties of formal declarations of war, as BenBurch alluded to in post #6. This sort of thing rarely happens in a vacuum.

Although I don't subscribe to any Pearl Harbor CT, the awareness of threat there was well in place. By "well" I mean that it went back decades. One of the quid pro quo's in the Teapot Dome Scandal was building a fuel dump for the Navy in Hawai'i in return for transferring control of the Teapot Dome reserves (and others) from the Dept. of the Navy to the Dept. of Interior. In 1921. Specifically because of concerns over Japanese militarism. By the time of the Pearl Harbor attack both the Dept. of the Navy and the Dept. of War had been looking for trouble from that theater for a long time. The only real surprise at Pearl was how completely asleep at the switch we were when the time came, considering the circumstances.

The "cowardly" meme is handy for rhetoric, but, as Ben suggests, it doesn't have much military significance.

 

[patchbunny]

It might be an interesting time for Argentina to have another go, given that we're supposedly quite overstretched and underfunded with our Afghan adventures. It must be tempting to assume we'd be too busy to mount a second task force.

Does the UK even have the naval capabilities she had in '82? IIRC it was a stretch even then.

 

[Debaser]

Does the UK even have the naval capabilities she had in '82? IIRC it was a stretch even then.

Not in quantity, but does it matter? The fact of one or two cruise missile equipped submarines roaming somewhere in the South Atlantic would give any Admiral second thoughts unless he had a very effective anti-submarine warfare capability.
The airport on the Falklands has also been enlarged to take transatlantic aircraft as a matter of course. As I said, there's a much lesser need for a three week cruise through the South Atlantic.

 

[dudalb]

I wonder sometimes about the niceties of formal declarations of war, as BenBurch alluded to in post #6. This sort of thing rarely happens in a vacuum.

Although I don't subscribe to any Pearl Harbor CT, the awareness of threat there was well in place. By "well" I mean that it went back decades. One of the quid pro quo's in the Teapot Dome Scandal was building a fuel dump for the Navy in Hawai'i in return for transferring control of the Teapot Dome reserves (and others) from the Dept. of the Navy to the Dept. of Interior. In 1921. Specifically because of concerns over Japanese militarism. By the time of the Pearl Harbor attack both the Dept. of the Navy and the Dept. of War had been looking for trouble from that theater for a long time. The only real surprise at Pearl was how completely asleep at the switch we were when the time came, considering the circumstances.

The "cowardly" meme is handy for rhetoric, but, as Ben suggests, it doesn't have much military significance.

Thing is, they were looking in 1941 for a Japanese attack on the Phillipines and maybe Guam, not Pearl Harbor. As one Admiral said post war "we never thought they would have the nerve to come that far East".

And the UK and Italy had been at war for a number of months at the time of Taranto. Declarations of war did not enter into the equation.

 

[Correa Neto]

Argentina has financial grief of its own.

Mind you, a decent war might shore up popularity for Cristina (wasn't that why Maggie did it in the 82 recession?). Unless they don't win of course.

Apples and oranges.
Galtieri's government was a military dictatorship. Cristina Kirchner's was elected democratically. As a way to divert the people's attention from economic and political problems, a fight against a foreign enemy (especially an enemy which is not as battered by a crisis as it was back in the 80's) is not a solution as appealing to her government as it was for the military.

Not to mention I doubt Argentina's military would consider a victory or even a draw as being possible.

A verbal war is possible, but the odds of a real war are very low.

 

[I Ratant]

I'm just a bit curious as to what other sort of sneak attacks there are, and what exactly sets a "cowardly" one separate from those.

I seem to remember the British being rather perturbed when our colonial forefathers were reluctant to dress in brightly colored outfits with center-of-body-mass targets clearly marked and stand still in open rank and file on a pre-arranged schedule to accommodate getting shot at. I believe the term "cowardly" was bandied about then as well.

.
The "cowardly sneak attack" is the one your side suffered.
The "brilliant military stroke" is the one your side inflicts on the other side.

 

[quadraginta]

.
The "cowardly sneak attack" is the one your side suffered.
The "brilliant military stroke" is the one your side inflicts on the other side.

That sounds about right.

 

[I Ratant]

From the good old WP place;

I suspect even a refitted and, importantly, fully professional Argentinian force would think twice before engaging any of this. The only hope would be for a 'Pearl Harbour' like attack, which given the surveillance kit that's probably in place, is unlikely...to say the least. This time the UK forces would only have to hold the (enlarged) airport long enough to allow for airborne reinforcements to arrive, no three week trek through the South Atlantic.

.
The Argies have replaced the A-4 Skyhawks they lost, at the very least.
Lockheed Air Service refurbed and updated a lot of them here in Palmdale some years back.
As opponents, the Argentines are a formidable force, not to be dismissed lightly!

 

[Correa Neto]

OK, but I doubt the Brittish stood still. And I bet the Argentinians know this.

A verbal war, eventually with some force displays, like maneauvers here and there. That's as far as I think it will go. Of course, an itchy nervous finger on either side may complicate things a lot.

 

[BenBurch]

Thing is, they were looking in 1941 for a Japanese attack on the Phillipines and maybe Guam, not Pearl Harbor. As one Admiral said post war "we never thought they would have the nerve to come that far East".

And the UK and Italy had been at war for a number of months at the time of Taranto. Declarations of war did not enter into the equation.

Even though we had war gamed the very thing. The leadership of the US Military had fallen into disarray by then.

 

[I Ratant]

OK, but I doubt the Brittish stood still. And I bet the Argentinians know this.

A verbal war, eventually with some force displays, like maneauvers here and there. That's as far as I think it will go. Of course, an itchy nervous finger on either side may complicate things a lot.

.
The Argies did many acts of military strategy and manuver that were admirable, unlike our recent foes in the Middle East, who basically made lots of bluster and posturing prior to the shooting, and evaporated when attacked.
I'd be adverse to dismissing the Argies as a formidable foe.
There's every reason to expect them to have learned from the experience.

 

[Darat]

It's sabre-rattling and nothing more - the Argentinians have nothing to gain from any use of force. It would isolate them internationally and if they were successful at invading and occupying the islands they wouldn't gain access to any (potential) oil in anything like the short to mid-term.