UK committed to Falklands sovereignty, pledges Cameron

[TimothyC]

Considering how much Britain and the USA have fought together in the past decade, would the US provide some kind of assistance in case of war this time?

Any other president the support would be as overt as the Brits wanted. With President Obama, I think the support would come from people at a lower level helping out as much as they can.

[S.L.Acker]

Considering how much Britain and the USA have fought together in the past decade, would the US provide some kind of assistance in case of war this time?

Any other president the support would be as overt as the Brits wanted. With President Obama, I think the support would come from people at a lower level helping out as much as they can.

Care to back this statement up? I really don't see the US declining to support the UK if they should ask for an appropriate level of aid. However I would actually be more likely to support the approach you think he would take, I don't see why the US should have to step into that conflict in anything more than a the role of a diplomatic mediator.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Would the US need to help? One, let alone two SSN's could fuck up the Argentinian navy quite nicely, and as already pointed out the Typhoons already there can give the Argie air force a very bloody nose. Presumably we have contingency plans somewhere to send more Typhoons down there post-haste if things go south.

This brings to mind the (rubbish) Patrick Robinson book "Ghost Force," where the Argie navy (with help from a single Russian Akula SSN utterly destroys the entire Royal Navy. Urgh that book was a waste of paper.

[Vendetta]

Considering how much Britain and the USA have fought together in the past decade, would the US provide some kind of assistance in case of war this time?

Any other president the support would be as overt as the Brits wanted. With President Obama, I think the support would come from people at a lower level helping out as much as they can.

There was absolutely no assistance forthcoming from the US in the last war, nor any hint of it when we had this rigmarole a year or so ago*. The UK supports the US' overseas adventures, not the other way around.

*Which all stopped when we merely announced that an SSN was hanging around the area.

[weemadando]

I was going to bring up the fact that the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Argentinian corner during the last one (mediating for peace on the grounds of "well the Argentinian have them, can't you just let them keep them?" Thanks Vendetta.

Reminding the White House that the UK is more important than feeling good about spurious anti-colonialism in South America seemed to work last time.

[Col. Crackpot]

I was going to bring up the fact that the US had to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Argentinian corner during the last one (mediating for peace on the grounds of "well the Argentinian have them, can't you just let them keep them?" Thanks Vendetta.

Reminding the White House that the UK is more important than feeling good about spurious anti-colonialism in South America seemed to work last time.

The lack of a cartoonish villain like Galtieri complete with evil secret police, combined with a war weary American populace would likely require some dragging this time as well. The lack of a nutjob like Galtieri also means no invasion. Though if push came to shove and the Argies actually were stupid enough to rattle the sabres too loudly, a visit from your friendly neighborhood US Navy CSG should be more than enough.

[Omega18]

Would the US need to help? One, let alone two SSN's could fuck up the Argentinian navy quite nicely, and as already pointed out the Typhoons already there can give the Argie air force a very bloody nose. Presumably we have contingency plans somewhere to send more Typhoons down there post-haste if things go south.

The other massive problem with an Argentine attack is they simply lack the amphibious capability to even remotely plausibly be successful.

As I noted, they would be going up against over 1,000 British military personnel, with many having significant combat experience and also retaining the inherent advantages of being the force on the defensive with knowledge of the terrain.

Historically Argentina had to deal with basically only 57 British marines when they actually invaded the Falklands, and they had significantly better amphibious capability at the time.

Today Argentina's total amphibious capability is actually substantially worse, with them able to carry 238 troops through the use of a converted type 42 destroyer, and whatever the Bahia San Blas can manage to carry troop wise. While Argentina does also have a paratrooper brigade, this still simply does not represent enough troops to successfully accomplish an invasion.

This is even more true given British radars and aerial patrol patterns on top of the Eurofighters rules out a surprise amphibious invasion like historically. If the Argentine amphibious invasion force tried to get too close to the Falklands while the Eurofighters and airfield are intact, those same troop ships could end up simply being sunk. This means that the airfield at Mount Pleasant has to be disabled by an Argentine airstrike significantly in advance of the actual landing, so a true surprise full fledged invasion is impossible. The British troops would have time to fully mobilize and take fully effective defensive positions along with potentially taking some last minute actions to impede any attackers.

Since the UK could repel such an attack on its own, the US would presumably stay basically out of it since all things considered it would like to avoid alienating South American countries over this issue if this is viable.

(Realistically the US domestic politics in a purely hypothetical situation where such an Argentine invasion succeeded would actually not be that tough because it actually would be a situation where the US could get away with purely naval and aerial power while the UK provides the ground troops. It would also be very different than the first invasion in that there should already been hundreds of British troops killed or wounded prior as a result of the actual invasion.)

[Omega18]

There was absolutely no assistance forthcoming from the US in the last war, nor any hint of it when we had this rigmarole a year or so ago*.

As stated this strikes me as rather dubiously absolute.

For instance and I've seen this claim from a variety of other sources.

During the Falklands war in 1982, 100 AIM-9L missiles were supplied to the RAF and RNavy, since none of the European-produced Lima models had actually reached British forces. Used by RN Sea Hariers and RAF Harriers (deployed on board RN ships), the missiles scored 17 known kills and 2 assists against Argentinian aircraft.

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_article1.html

In other words, the UK got special preference with the sudden rush delivery of these advanced missiles out of the US's own stocks since European produced versions were not available to the UK as of that point.

The AIM-9L Sidewinder Missiles were actually a major advancement as an "all aspect missile" which allowed them to lock on and fire at the front of enemy planes instead of solely its "tailpipe" from behind. This provided a major advantage for the British aircraft compared to their Argentine counterparts.

The US also provided the UK with extensive satellite intel during the war.

[weemadando]

From a bunch of reading on this conflict this year, it boiled down to:

US- Can't you let them have the islands? We want to build Pan Americanism and like to see anti Colonialism.

UK - Do you like NATO and having bases in the UK too?

US - *loosens collar* erm, so what do you need?

[TimothyC]

Care to back this statement up? I really don't see the US declining to support the UK if they should ask for an appropriate level of aid. However I would actually be more likely to support the approach you think he would take, I don't see why the US should have to step into that conflict in anything more than a the role of a diplomatic mediator.

There is the feel in certain parts of the US that the current administration has no love of, nor support for the UK. This has been covered on this board several times. The original statement was one part truth, 1-2 parts hyperbole.

[Zaune]

The other massive problem with an Argentine attack is they simply lack the amphibious capability to even remotely plausibly be successful.

As I noted, they would be going up against over 1,000 British military personnel, with many having significant combat experience and also retaining the inherent advantages of being the force on the defensive with knowledge of the terrain.

Historically Argentina had to deal with basically only 57 British marines when they actually invaded the Falklands, and they had significantly better amphibious capability at the time.

Today Argentina's total amphibious capability is actually substantially worse, with them able to carry 238 troops through the use of a converted type 42 destroyer, and whatever the Bahia San Blas can manage to carry troop wise. While Argentina does also have a paratrooper brigade, this still simply does not represent enough troops to successfully accomplish an invasion.

This is even more true given British radars and aerial patrol patterns on top of the Eurofighters rules out a surprise amphibious invasion like historically. If the Argentine amphibious invasion force tried to get too close to the Falklands while the Eurofighters and airfield are intact, those same troop ships could end up simply being sunk. This means that the airfield at Mount Pleasant has to be disabled by an Argentine airstrike significantly in advance of the actual landing, so a true surprise full fledged invasion is impossible. The British troops would have time to fully mobilize and take fully effective defensive positions along with potentially taking some last minute actions to impede any attackers.

Those four aircraft have rather a lot riding on them though, at least without an SSN or a couple of destroyers in the area. I don't know if the Argentines have any special forces worth the name, but if they could somehow neutralise the Typhoons on the ground or on takeoff there'd be nothing we could do to retaliate until their ships were in artillery range of the islands.

[CJvR]

While there are only a few planes permanently stationed there Mount un-Pleasant have facilities for many more. Any signs of an Argentinian buildup could trigger a swift reinforcement and the Argentinian policy towards the islands have drasticly lowered their chanses of strategic or tactical surprise. Also the Argentinians have never rebuilt from the losses during the war, the best stuff they got is 30 years old. As long as the British aren't sleeping on their posts the Argentinian hopes for their maritime empire are just dreams.

[S.L.Acker]

Care to back this statement up? I really don't see the US declining to support the UK if they should ask for an appropriate level of aid. However I would actually be more likely to support the approach you think he would take, I don't see why the US should have to step into that conflict in anything more than a the role of a diplomatic mediator.

There is the feel in certain parts of the US that the current administration has no love of, nor support for the UK. This has been covered on this board several times. The original statement was one part truth, 1-2 parts hyperbole.

Ah, I see. I've lurked a while but don't follow a ton of stories in N&P so I hadn't seen the debate on the political leanings towards or away Britain. Also, being Canadian seems a decent excuse for this being a bit of a blind spot.

[That NOS Guy]

Ah, I see. I've lurked a while but don't follow a ton of stories in N&P so I hadn't seen the debate on the political leanings towards or away Britain. Also, being Canadian seems a decent excuse for this being a bit of a blind spot.

Don't let him fool you, he really is an idiot. His statement is pure hyperbole and is really just the opinion of people who think Obama should be lynched. He might tell you that Obama's gift of an iPod to the Queen is so much of an insult that it's proof that president harbors a grudge against the UK for the Mau Mau.

[S.L.Acker]

Ah, I see. I've lurked a while but don't follow a ton of stories in N&P so I hadn't seen the debate on the political leanings towards or away Britain. Also, being Canadian seems a decent excuse for this being a bit of a blind spot.

Don't let him fool you, he really is an idiot. His statement is pure hyperbole and is really just the opinion of people who think Obama should be lynched. He might tell you that Obama's gift of an iPod to the Queen is so much of an insult that it's proof that president harbors a grudge against the UK for the Mau Mau.

I was actually reading the HPCA (I think was the title) thread in testing the other day and saw that there seems to be a bit of a rift on the board. Though seeing some of the posts from that other site I'm of the mind to say good riddance.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Those four aircraft have rather a lot riding on them though, at least without an SSN or a couple of destroyers in the area. I don't know if the Argentines have any special forces worth the name, but if they could somehow neutralise the Typhoons on the ground or on takeoff there'd be nothing we could do to retaliate until their ships were in artillery range of the islands.

A fair point, representing one of the few (if the only) ways the Argentinians might be able to pull off an upset under the current circumstances. On the other hand, the British army is fairly familiar with that kind of warfare, meaning they would be as good as anyone at defending against it. Funnily enough, while there's a fair bit of material floating around about commando missions, there isn't much at all about defending against them.

[Malagar]

Those four aircraft have rather a lot riding on them though, at least without an SSN or a couple of destroyers in the area. I don't know if the Argentines have any special forces worth the name, but if they could somehow neutralise the Typhoons on the ground or on takeoff there'd be nothing we could do to retaliate until their ships were in artillery range of the islands.

Only if Argentina can get their forces there in one or two days, depending on how long it would take to fly in replacements.

[UnderAGreySky]

Can the runway there service an E-3? I presume the UK could rush an AWACS over if the need be but where could it operate out of?

[Juubi Karakuchi]

Can the runway there service an E-3? I presume the UK could rush an AWACS over if the need be but where could it operate out of?

The base currently supports Hercules and VC10s, and is also the Falklands' international airport. Considering the distances involved, I reckon it would have to be able to manage planes of that size to be of much use in either capacity. The runway is apparently 10,000 feet long and made of reinforced concrete.

[Omega18]

Those four aircraft have rather a lot riding on them though, at least without an SSN or a couple of destroyers in the area. I don't know if the Argentines have any special forces worth the name, but if they could somehow neutralise the Typhoons on the ground or on takeoff there'd be nothing we could do to retaliate until their ships were in artillery range of the islands.

The one element I left out of my previous post is the UK always essentially has a destroyer or frigate stationed in the area equipped with a helicopter that can be armed with anti-ship missiles and could potentially target the Argentine landing craft. While this is something that Argentina can presumably deal with if the UK Eurofighters are taken out, it is something else to worry about and further complicates the idea of a true surprise attack.

Particularly since Mount Pleasant with its airfield is somewhat inland, Argentina taking out the aircraft with special forces would be far easier said than done. If they used paratroopers, the problem is those paratroopers are effectively going to be taken away for potential use when the rest of the invasion force arrives. (Argentina only has so many paratrooper in the first place.)

A key point again is that Argentina's amphibious capability is not sufficient, and any naval invasion force from Argentina would be substantially outnumbered by the British defenders. If Argentina tries to requisition a bunch of fishing boats in addition for its invasion, the UK is going to get tipped off and fly in more Eurofighters and/or men.

The underlying huge problem though for any Argentine invasion would be the British sub force. A British SSN is in fact very commonly in the general area around the Falklands, and the huge problem Argentina would have is not knowing when it is around. Argentina might be able to manage to sneak in the first wave if they successfully take out the Eurofighters, but not the second. Argentina would be essentially entirely gambling on a British SSN not being nearby.

However even if Argentina gets lucky, the UK could still if necessary fly in paratroopers with its C-17s even if the runway is completely taken out by an initial Argentine attack. At most the UK might need US refueling support for the C-17s, (since the UK currently don't have the right sort of boom to do this) which is something the US is extremely likely to in that scenario to agree to grant. (If the US wants to fudge things slightly, they can even only refuel the C-17s of their way back to Ascension Island to make their aid seem slightly less blatant.) This would realistically be sufficient to keep the military situation in favor of the UK long enough for whatever UK SSN is closest to the Falklands to rush into the area and block further Argentine reinforcements. (Logistically Argentina has to worry about not merely bringing in men and equipment, but also ammunition for its weaponry.)

In other words Argentina's invasion is incredibly unlikely to succeed regardless of what happens with the Eurofighters.

[Enigma]

In the chance that Argentina does try to invade and gets repulsed, would the U.K. bomb any of Argentina's coastal military assets? Or just settle on keeping the Falklands secure?

[Sea Skimmer]

Of course they'd bomb Argentina, it didn’t happen in 1982 purely for lack of capability as Argentinian Mirage III interceptors could have brought down a Vulcan attack and the Vulcan missions needed too much air refueling anyway. As in 1982 only about a half dozen small airfields are within range of the Falklands and none of them could or would have adequate defenses against even the smallest scale attacks from modern RAF aircraft or RN Tomahawks. The Argentinean Skyhawks, majority of the present force, are more or less limited to just two of these bases, and the whole Argentinean air force only has about sixty jets in the first place. The Argie planes are a lot better armed in 1982, but RN air defense are an order of magnitude better even if they don't have any more carrier launched fighters and odds are the US hands over Harriers in twenty minutes anyway. Skyhawk raids vs a Harrier with AMRAAM... that will work out so well!

Not that it really matters, with British forces heavily committed to Afghanistan the US would certainly get involved, and Britain might even be able to drag France into it now that Argentina is no long a major French client state. Nor does anyone give a damn about a communist takeover of South America like they did in 1982. One US heavy bomber sortie would wipe each of those fields off the map, then hoards of US transport planes rain 10,000 US and British paratroopers onto the Falklands even if they've been totally overrun after British forces were evaporated by magic. Victory in 96 hours is actually plausible. Shooty War is a non issue.

[Alkaloid]

I'd argue they would only bomb Argentina itself if they lost access to the airfield in the Falklands simply because it's a very different political statement to fly over the sea and bomb another country than it is to have someone else fly over the sea to bomb you and get shot down. All Britain needs to do to make the Falklands impossible for Argentina to take is sink the Argentine navy, which they can do easily with subs and even easier if they can bring in surface vessels with appropriate air cover, and it's much easier for Argentina to spin bombing a defenseless Argentine coastline as the big bad Brits out to reform their empire than it is to spin them being royally fucked after invading a foreign power which in a remarkable act of restraint only destroy enough Argentine assets to stop them doing it again.

[Sea Skimmer]

How many hundreds of bombs did the UK just drop on Libya which had nothing to do with defending anything British at all again? Spin doesn't matter, it would be an absurdly blatant act of aggression for Argentina to do anything, and it has no chance of happening unless they run into a rerun of 1981/82; the government needs a distraction from riots in the streets.

[Alkaloid]

Libya. Where most of the world was baying for something to be done? Where they were taking action against a madman massacring his own people? Where intervening was in the eyes of most nations and people unambiguously the act of a good guy?

Britain looks to be trying to build an image as a relatively powerful but reasonable and responsible international player at this point, so if Argentina do go mental and try to take back the Falklands, they have to choose what to do in response on a scale of doing nothing and letting them be taken, and glassing all of Argentina. Given that Britain has charged pretty enthusiastically into a few wars in the last 10 years or so, they want to be as restrained as possible in their response while still appearing strong enough that no one will really want to cross them. Comprehensively defeating the attack and then sinking the Argentine Navy (unambiguously military) rather than bombing airbases (which almost inevitably will result in civilian casualties, and given that the UK can and likely will trash the Argentine airforce in short order providing they have access to the airfield on the Falklands, could be seen/spun as unnecessary to the public) gives the impression that they could have been more punitive but chose to be charitable, which sends a rather nice message to everyone, especially the countries presently siding with Argentina.