Thread: Britain to ‘Beef Up’ Defense of Disputed Falkland Islands

A child climbs on the Malvinas Island war memorial during a ceremony marking the 30th anniversary of the conflict between Argentina and Great Britain over the remote South Atlantic archipelago, in Ushuaia, Argentina, Monday April 2, 2012.

LONDON—
Britain plans to “beef up” its defenses of the disputed Falkland Islands to ensure they are properly protected, Defense Secretary Michael Fallon said on Tuesday, in comments likely to irk Argentina which still lays claim to the archipelago.

Tensions over the Falklands still crackle more than 30 years after Argentine forces seized them and Britain sent a task force to retake them in a brief war which saw more than 600 Argentine and 255 British servicemen killed.

“I'm going to be announcing to parliament later today how we are going to beef up the defenses there,” Fallon told Sky news.

The Argentine government claims the islands, which are 300 miles off the Argentine coast and 8,000 miles from Britain, as its own and has stepped up a campaign to get what it calls Las Malvinas back.

“We have to respond to that and make sure that the islands are properly protected. We have to take account of any future and possible threats to the islands,” Fallon told BBC Radio.

The Sun newspaper reported on Tuesday that Russia was working on a deal to lease 12 long range bombers to Argentina.

“That particular deal hasn't been confirmed,” Fallon said, saying a threat remained nonetheless. “It is a very live threat, we have to respond to it,” he said.

Britain to ?Beef Up? Defense of Disputed Falkland Islands

We must be near to the UK Election then?

Originally Posted by misskit

has stepped up a campaign to get what it calls Las Malvinas back.

Can't take back what was never yours.

This is typical of the political naivete' of the cameron clown show. Shrewd old maggie would have conspicously withdrawn troops from the Falklands, sent all the wrong diplomatic signals, and waited for the bargies to invade. Thus ensuring her re-election. It even worked for dubya. Doesn't matter how stoopid, war wins elections. Which just goes to show how collectively stupid we are.

Originally Posted by sabang

and waited for the bargies to invade

....but the Argies did invade.... Not the best calculated move in their rather fucked up and dysfunctional history. We treated their prisoners better than their own officers who were commissioned by a vicious dictator who thought taking back the "Malvinas" would make him a national hero for all time and let everybody forget how many people "disappeared" under his leadership....

Also gave the various branches of the military a chance for a shakedown cruise and a bit of live fire training.

What percentage of the Falklands population do you suppose voted to join Argentina...?? Something like 0.01% I think.....seems being British is fairly popular in the Maaalvinas......

Originally Posted by misskit

“That particular deal hasn't been confirmed,” Fallon said, saying a threat remained nonetheless. “It is a very live threat, we have to respond to it,” he said.

In other words the threat is "very live" even though there is no threat.

Gotta love politicians looking to increase military spending.

Well, we don't have Baroness Thatcher and her pal Ronald Maximus to kick around anymore so it's a brand new ballgame.

Originally Posted by Norton

Originally Posted by misskit

“That particular deal hasn't been confirmed,” Fallon said, saying a threat remained nonetheless. “It is a very live threat, we have to respond to it,” he said.

In other words the threat is "very live" even though there is no threat.

Gotta love politicians looking to increase military spending.

The Falklands/Malvinas are under a constant threat from Argentina FFS. It's a kind of national obsession with the Argies, and their leaders keep it on the radar constantly because it's one thing they can count on for support if their popularity is slipping too much.

They have already made one attempt to take back the islands my military force. That effort only failed because they underestimated one of the few the real leaders the UK has had in a long time.

The area is known to have substantial resources under the seabed, and it's also a strategic base for military operations, so they are not going to give up, and will most likely wait for a really weak and ineffective government in the UK to make the next move.....calculating that it would be too much trouble for the half asleep dingbats in London to send another military force to kick their asses again.

Then there is that little matter of the population that is staunchly British and wants to remain so....by an overwhelming majority.

Originally Posted by kmart

We must be near to the UK Election then?

Tut tut ,, how cynical ,, the thought never enterered my head

Originally Posted by koman

The Falklands/Malvinas are under a constant threat from Argentina FFS.

Actually its an empty threat. The Argentines military capability has degraded tremendously since the war. Today they simply could not mount an effective assault on The Falklands.

They have just now ordered some JF-17's from China aside from that they have less then 10 Mirage fighters and 30 A-4 Skyhawks. They have only one in air refueling tanker as well.

Mounting a ground assault is even more far fetched.

No this smells of politics to me..

Originally Posted by koman

calculating that it would be too much trouble for the half asleep dingbats in London to send another military force to kick their asses again.
.

If they bloody could. Think the Royal Navy is not much more than a costal fleet at the moment.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Well, we don't have Baroness Thatcher and her pal Ronald Maximus to kick around anymore so it's a brand new ballgame.

Her pal, yeah right. She had to tell that simpering mannequin Reagan to fuck off and stay out of it.

Files released by the National Archives at Kew, south west London, under the 30-year rule show that as British troops closed in on final victory, the US president made a late-night phone call to Mrs Thatcher, then prime minister, urging her not to completely humiliate the Argentinians.

However, his request fell on deaf ears as a defiant prime minister insisted that she had not sent a British task force across the globe just "to hand over the Queen's islands to a contact group".

Reagan's Falklands plea to Thatcher - Channel 4 News

So the British defends the Falklands.

But when the Russians defend its right for Crimea to be part of Russia, it gets sanctions.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Today they simply could not mount an effective assault on The Falklands.

If there was no significant defence force stationed there, of course they could. You don't need much military capability to invade a virtually undefended target....and if they decided to gamble on no military response from the UK they might just take a crack at it one day, if they think they can get away with it...especially if they think there's enough support from other countries sympathetic to their cause.

I agree the likelihood is slim, but they have been making noises more or less constantly about the place over recent years. As I said, it's been a kind of national obsession for as long as I can remember, and even after the debacle of the Falklands War, they still keep at it even 30 years later.

Now they are being sent some noises back...that's all. Somehow I don't think this "beefed up" defence being talked about in London will amount to that much; just enough to send a message to keep your hands off.

Of course it's political.....in both countries.

They've already beefed up security, been talking about this since January.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

They've already beefed up security, been talking about this since January.

Pray tell us more Midshipman......couple or armoured brigades, fleet of nuclear attack subs, or a dozen more squaddies..??....

Do you own research instead of speculating.

Originally Posted by koman

If there was no significant defence force stationed there, of course they could.

But there is a force there. The British Army has a garrison there and the islands themselves maintain a defense force.

The Argentines only option would be an amphibious assault by their marines. Itself is a very small force. Like I said it would not be effective.

here's the threat

Tensions have increased now Argentina is negotiating to lease 12 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 supersonic, all-weather attack aircraft from Russia with which it could patrol over Port Stanley again.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

Tensions have increased now Argentina is negotiating to lease 12 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 supersonic, all-weather attack aircraft from Russia with which it could patrol over Port Stanley again.

You are behind the times. That deal fell through. They settled for Chinese JF-17's. It wouldn't matter anyway because the four Eurofighter Typhoons on the islands would make quick work of either aircraft.

Thank you snub i stand corrected.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

So the British defends the Falklands.

But when the Russians defend its right for Crimea to be part of Russia, it gets sanctions.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "non sequitur"?

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

So the British defends the Falklands.

But when the Russians defend its right for Crimea to be part of Russia, it gets sanctions.

Are you surprised at western hypocrisy?

I have a Russian friend who was very, very surprised - and still is - at the vehemence of 'western' negativity vis-a-vis Crimea . . . and she is very much a liberal

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

here's the threat

Tensions have increased now Argentina is negotiating to lease 12 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 supersonic, all-weather attack aircraft from Russia

Hope the Russians make sure they keep the insurance up to date.