I would like to think that even if the Argies tried to re-invade the Falkland Isles or Las Malvinas as they call them, they would fail.

Their ecomy is in such a rat state, their armed forces, such as they are, are not up to much. You also have to remember their psyche.

During the invasion of 1982, the Argentinian Air Force were the real heroes. Flying from the Argy mainland, more often than not on a one way ticket, they relentlessly pressed home their arial attacks, often in the face of seemingly impossible odds.

Sea Harriers from the 'sunken' HMS Invincible provided CAP and accounted for numerous Sky Hawk A5s and Super Etendards.

The much vaunted Argentinian Navy on the other hand, once the Belgrano was sunk, stayed in port and when push turned to shove. The threat they posed, simply did not materialise.

Of the Argy ground troops, apart from the Argy Company 601, the rest were conscripts - badly led, low in morale and hopelessly outclassed by the humble 'Tom' of the Paras or the humble 'Bootneck' of the Marines.

Up against the SAS, SBS, the Marine Mountain and Arctic Warfare Cadre, or even Commachio, the poor Argies simply did not stand a chance.

In 1982, it was possible to mount an invasion against the Falklands. Now, with the radar picket and the Tornados flying a continuous CAP, there is little or no chance of the Argies invading.

Should their leaders be stupid enough to try another invasion, even the Falkland Island Self Defense Force could defeat an invader, let alone the battalion of TA which rotates through the Falklands every six months and
augments the standing force at Mount Pleasant and other places.

IMO Mount Pleasant is the big deal along with satellite reconnaissance.

It means the British can see anything developing (Argentina is a very big country and it would be obvious if they moved aircraft etc to their southern tip).
It means that Britain would continue to control the skies and, ultimately, means the British forces could mash any attempt at a rerun of the invasion; the base also allows for the rapid reinforcement and rearmament of the islands if necessary (which is what it was designed for and something British forces have been geared towards for years now).

This in addition to the state of Argentine forces IMO means that this little piece of history will not be repeated.



[edit on 5-9-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Simply put, i believe i can safetly say we learnt our lesson about leaving territory undeffended.

Daedalus
YOu posted:

"ahem...You forget that the soviet union has managed its oil resources very efficiently during the communist era.. "

The communists or the Soviet Union never ran anything effeciently....Ever...with the exception of making AK 47s and other small arms. Im sorry..I forgot about Vodka. This is not the technologys of which nations are built or maintained. This line of thinking is and has been kept hidden from the west.
I have never seen a Soviet boom box...a Soviet Automobile available on the international market. How about a Soviet Television. A Soviet Desktop computer??? Laptop. Think about what you are saying Daedalus3. I can remember when the Soviets were trying to get natural gas from out of the Siberian areas. They actually went to the Germans for technology and know how to do this..this is not the workings of a Super Power. I dont have to be a economic genius to figure this out.
Ones military might is based on ones commercial abilitys. One must have the private sector to produce with surpluses to feed the military. Soviet Russia has none of this and they certainly have limited surpluses..even today.
I am trying to figure out if the Russians today have a formula one racing team..does anyone know...super powers can do this.??? HOw long have they been in existance if so????
Super powers are economic superpowers..they produce so much of goods in demand around the world they must export much of it to get the materials to which they do not have access to keep their production going.

also Winchester Ranger T...supply and demand adjust themselves out in a free market....they will balance if the market is free..they will not balance if the market is regulated or controlled..they will always tend upward...if for no other reason than the money supply is inflated/depreciated.
Translation ..supply and demand are related. .in a free market. In a non free market they will be kept seperated. Which one do you think we have??? Free or not free??? Thinking can sometimes be difficult..this is why price controls are very dumb.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I'm just saying that the phrase "all commie countries that own oil don't know how to use it well" is false..

Owning oil can actually mess up a country's economic independance and diversity as is buoys the local currency, monopolises the local infrastructure usually leaving the country unable to excel in any other economic venture, and of course always incurs the wrath of other nations..

Hence oil is also known as the devil's excrement..

However the soviets have not fallen prey to any of the above mentioned disadvantages of oil..
The clause that an economic superpower is a true superpower is valid in a capitalistic world..
The downfall of the soviets can definitely not be attributed to the fact that is does not have a world famous laptop/supercomputer or an F-1 team..
It was just pure defective governance.
Russian electronic/mechanical prowess can still belittle most of the nations that have F-1 teams and world famous Laptops..

Also F-1 is a another economic/capitalistic phenomenon as car companies, not countries field F-1 teams..
A-1 is another story..And Russia is very much represented in A-1..
We will soon get to see how good their team/tech is in A-1..

On a separate point we will also get to know why in blazes did countries like Pakistan and Libya field A-1 teams

Just to get back on thread, the war in the South Atlantic was a true 'squaddies' war. Battles were won at section and platoon level. On the ground, the Argies were equipped with essentially the same weapons as their British counterparts, and several bits of their kit was better than the British stuff, most notibly the night vision aids. The British were outnumbered, and most of our helicopter assets were lost early when the primary carrier was sunk. Numbers wise, the Argies were superior, and they were in pre-prepared defensive positions. They were also closer to their logistical suppy line, allowing for more efficient resups. Basically, it came down to the quality of troops. A small, professional VOLUNTEER army completely wiped out a larger, better equiped and well defended CONSCRIPT army.

It's all well and good shouting about the special forces assets and how they won the war, but it is the quality of the infantry that wins this type of conflict. With a few notable exceptions, eg. Pebble Island, a good infantry recce platoon could have taken on most of the missions that were undertaken by SF troops. This is as true today as it ever was. When rounds start going down range, the British infantry are still among the best available. End of chat.

it should also be mentioned that the brits also had to mostly fight uphill, at night on what were essentally featureless battlefields.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I have never seen...a Soviet Automobile available on the international market.

We used to drive a Lada Niva. As it wasn't a Ford, Holden, Mitsubishi or Nissan, obvously tt was imported in to Australia prior to its sale. I believe that puts in on the international market. How about the Lada Samara?

Hey, everybody reading this thread, find a copy of the book "Falklands 2" and read it.

The first thing you do is take out Mt Pleasant with commando-type special forces. Carry out a little "decapitation exercise" and suddenly things are looking up for you. Even better if you take out the men at Mt Pleasant but keep the infrastructure, now you've got a nice big radar to tell you when the Brits are coming.

Still, Argies vs Brits? That's like Mike Tyson versus anyone. I'd bet on my grandma over him