Invade the Falklands

Thinking of knocking out the Tiffies on the deck, how well will CAMM perform against cruise missiles?

To my mind the how is linked to the why and the when

Panic to divert from home economic situation – immediate – cannot be done. The Argentinian capability gap is bigger and harder to fill than the UK one

A genuine held belief that FI are Malvinas – long term – apply diplomatic pressure in concert with Spain and possibly others with a stake in seeing UK sovereignty reduced and UK humbled and build up nuisance resources which make retaining and defending FI too expensive

A grab of valuable economic assets – medium term – build up forces by buying from anyone who will sell second hand and/or offering generous terms on exploitation of resources

Buy and develop capacity to use 6 Diesel boats
Buy long range strikers and IFR knock out Tiffies on deck and Moon Pod Alpha, wait for Tiffies in air to run out of fuel and ditch or divert to a neutral or friendly
how many? Pass. The longer it takes to buy and induct the more warning UK has to reinforce which means more numbers are needed which takes longer. But UK will have a finite limit on how big the garrison can be and how long it can stay at reinforced level

To station a Sqn wouldn’t actually cost that much, it would just mean one less deployable Sqn for the RAF, this won’t be such an issue once F-35 comes online or when the islands oil is flowing I am sure they could finance a couple of Gripen squadrons 😛

Hi Swerve

Sorry to but in this late into this thread but I believe that there is a manner in which the Argentinians could get away with removing the British residents “temporarily” from the Falklands Islands IF they said it was being done for their own security. Protection from the hazards from an unintended but unpredictable confrontation with the British in their “counter invasion”. By doing this it would be “humanitarian” movement in nature not “ethnic cleansing” by any means. They would keep the title to their properties and would be allowed to return to the islands (in the company of some 6000 native Argentinians for sure) once the military crisis subdued.

The luck of the British is that the petty right-left issues of the K couple has guaranteed that it would be the Argentinian Government the ones to destroy the Argentinian Military forces, not the British Armed Forces…

If the 82 invasion happened closer to the winter July/August the British Task Force would have found it much harder to do anything really useful in military terms like they were able to in April and May.

Finally I believe that the most realistic pressure strategy for the Argentinians in the case of the Falklands would be to buy modern hardware and specially submarines in good numbers (10-12) large cargo planes and tankers (KC390?) and use them with a reasonable number long range fighters (Flankers?) armed with modern missiles and stand off munitions. News of this alone would force the British Govenment to ramp up their military expenses in protecting the islands to the point of making it untenable, economically speaking. Finally the Argentinian quest for the Falklands isn`t set to end any time soon, since this is clearly a nation-wide issue that widely transcends the smaller political survival needs of the Military Junta of 1982. That is all. 🙂

Best Regards

Hammer

Not prejudices, just realism. Look at Argentina’s political history. It needs a new political culture, & that takes a long time, or a drastic shock. A shock strong enough would be catastrophic in the short term, & there’s no sign of an improvement in political culture. If anything, it’s getting worse.

My plan isn’t impossible forever, but it’s impossible at the moment. For politicians like Kirchner, kicking up a fuss & bullying the Falklanders is an easy way to distract voters from more important matters, such as her mishandling of the economy. She seeks short-term advantage, & to hell with the damage it does to Argentina in the long term. She’s not unique, & of course this isn’t a solely Argentinean problem (c.f. Silvio Berlusconi), but Argentina has a particularly bad case of it.

It’s sad. Argentina is a beautiful country, & when I travelled around it I found the people welcoming, friendly, & hospitable. It could be a great country, with better politics.

Your response ignores most of the specific difficulties with your proposals, & then diverges rather strangely.

“what if I posed to you that you must come up with a viable plan, within reasons, to make this work for the argentines.”

Firstly, why the hell should I? It’s your fantasy scenario, not mine. Why should I do your work for you? I have no interest in constructing a viable invasion plan.

The really stupid thing about all these invasion plans is that if instead of invading & trying to bully the islanders, Argentina had spent the last 50 years in positive engagement, the islands would probably now be dominated by Argentinean businesses & pretty well integrated into Argentina in every way except politically, & with population changes brought about by economic integration, even that might be looking possible. There – that’s my plan. But it relies on Argentinean politicians thinking about a long-term goal & working towards it, so we all know it’s impossible. And thereby fail all other Argentinean plans for how to take the islands.

You see, that’s why I said it’ll be very revealing. Why can’t it happen as you’ve stated. Oh the prejudices….No one said it’s what going to happen, merely something that may work. I have no issues of what you’ve stated as a possibility but you yourself posed it and then discards it. Why is that? The USA wouldn’t have never existed via that singular event because it’s impossible. Okay, I’ll let it stop here. It was interesting. You can have the last word if you wish. Or we can leave it at that. Consider Senkaku I is uninhabited.

Your response ignores most of the specific difficulties with your proposals, & then diverges rather strangely.

“what if I posed to you that you must come up with a viable plan, within reasons, to make this work for the argentines.”

Firstly, why the hell should I? It’s your fantasy scenario, not mine. Why should I do your work for you? I have no interest in constructing a viable invasion plan.

The really stupid thing about all these invasion plans is that if instead of invading & trying to bully the islanders, Argentina had spent the last 50 years in positive engagement, the islands would probably now be dominated by Argentinean businesses & pretty well integrated into Argentina in every way except politically, & with population changes brought about by economic integration, even that might be looking possible. There – that’s my plan. But it relies on Argentinean politicians thinking about a long-term goal & working towards it, so we all know it’s impossible. And thereby fail all other Argentinean plans for how to take the islands.

Totally different circumstances. That ship had a few hundred people, travelling to a territory with over a million already in it. It was a civilian ship in every sense, not a government-controlled ship acting as part of a military enterprise, which is what you’re proposing.

You keep clutching at straws. You look for similarities where there are none. You ignore historical lessons that show how unrealistic parts of your fantasy are, & try to contort others to fit it, regardless of differences.

If you want to construct hypothetical scenarios, you need to think them through more fully.

Start with the base conditions, which so far you’ve ignored. When is this supposed to happen? What needs to change? If it’s alternative history, what would have had to be different? For example, if Galtieri et al had decided on a different strategy for seizing the islands, why would they do so? What would convince them it was better than what they actually did? In that case, you should remember that their strategy was predicated on Britain not launching a counter-invasion, because the purpose of the invasion was to distract the populace from Argentina’s impending bankruptcy, so any plan which would not assume a quick, easy, & cheap war would have to assume a major change in base conditions.

Don’t pluck rabbits out of hats. Changes to base conditions must be minor, or the whole thing becomes silly, like the previously mentioned Deathstar.

Don’t assume different reactions from historical, for the same reason.

Remember that if one side does something different, the other side will react to it. Don’t assume passivity. Basic errors such as assuming that Argentina can double the number of Zubrs in the world without it being noticed or reacted to make you look stupid.

Do your research. Not understanding that fleets of merchant ships wandering off shipping lanes would be noticed is another basic error, as is repeating a common fantasy scenario without showing any awareness that it’s common. Not understanding how the geography affects your plans is yet another basic & common error.

Work out what preparation needs to be done. Failure to do so is very common. Remember the old adage “Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.”

Try to work out the counters to your scenario before presenting it. Not doing this is one of the most common mistakes, & perhaps the most common.

Don’t fall into the trap of imagining that things will happen the way you want them to.

I’m afraid you’ve made just about all of the mistakes listed above.

You’re standing things on their heads again. The onus is on the person presenting a plan to show why it will work. Read what I’ve written above. You didn’t just follow the scenario, you presented additional ideas. If you don’t know, ask. There’s no shame in not knowing, but there is in arguing when you don’t understand what you’re arguing about.

And yes, transporting lots of Argentineans to the Falklands is a very old, very tired, idea.

So what if it’s old and tired? Good grief! Do you keep repeating every mistake you’ve ever made? What you’re saying is that you don’t believe there’s any value to learning from experience.

Wait, did you not read the very beginning of the posed scenario. I’ve only made one instance of speculating a what if if this was back in 82, but the overall premise is in the 2020s time frame. Again, nowhere did i say this will guarantee to work or of possibilities. Most likely it won’t work, but imho not of technical challenges but cultural and national realities. Also, please read the details…the idea is not migration, but a very short temporal disruption in changing the realities on the ground. Most military and political responses do not handle them well. If you are so well versed in this subject, what if I posed to you that you must come up with a viable plan, within reasons, to make this work for the argentines. Your answer will be very revealing. By the way, of course I was using analogies and extending them…very rarely does history exactly repeats itself. If those were accepted as literal then I can see the issues. However, most actions and reactions are based on precedence and expectations…that’s another way how great nations lose wars.

Was that response of the world when Israel boarded those ships and some died? I think you’re still stuck with what ‘s right or wrong versus the erosion of national prestige. Sometimes it doesn’t matter if you are fully correct. A nation’s leader will have to very carefully weight those. What happened to the expertise of winning the hearts and minds….when put to test time are hard.

Totally different circumstances. That ship had a few hundred people, travelling to a territory with over a million already in it. It was a civilian ship in every sense, not a government-controlled ship acting as part of a military enterprise, which is what you’re proposing.

You keep clutching at straws. You look for similarities where there are none. You ignore historical lessons that show how unrealistic parts of your fantasy are, & try to contort others to fit it, regardless of differences.

If you want to construct hypothetical scenarios, you need to think them through more fully.

Start with the base conditions, which so far you’ve ignored. When is this supposed to happen? What needs to change? If it’s alternative history, what would have had to be different? For example, if Galtieri et al had decided on a different strategy for seizing the islands, why would they do so? What would convince them it was better than what they actually did? In that case, you should remember that their strategy was predicated on Britain not launching a counter-invasion, because the purpose of the invasion was to distract the populace from Argentina’s impending bankruptcy, so any plan which would not assume a quick, easy, & cheap war would have to assume a major change in base conditions.

Don’t pluck rabbits out of hats. Changes to base conditions must be minor, or the whole thing becomes silly, like the previously mentioned Deathstar.

Don’t assume different reactions from historical, for the same reason.

Remember that if one side does something different, the other side will react to it. Don’t assume passivity. Basic errors such as assuming that Argentina can double the number of Zubrs in the world without it being noticed or reacted to make you look stupid.

Do your research. Not understanding that fleets of merchant ships wandering off shipping lanes would be noticed is another basic error, as is repeating a common fantasy scenario without showing any awareness that it’s common. Not understanding how the geography affects your plans is yet another basic & common error.

Work out what preparation needs to be done. Failure to do so is very common. Remember the old adage “Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.”

Try to work out the counters to your scenario before presenting it. Not doing this is one of the most common mistakes, & perhaps the most common.

Don’t fall into the trap of imagining that things will happen the way you want them to.

I’m afraid you’ve made just about all of the mistakes listed above.

I was merely following the posed scenario. I was not the one who initiated this thread. It may be tired ideas to you, but you had a choice. Are you saying citizen transplant into the Falklands is an old and tiring idea as part of the initial stategy to hold ground? Maybe because i’m ignorant of such, however, i don’t believe anyone pointed to plan xxx or yyy that could’ve or would’ve. Perhaps it indeed won’t work, that’s fine….one’s idea can fail, it’s just an idea. Instead, simply stating it wouldn’t work…that does not alleviate you the burdon of proof of old and tiring. Consider many real life events were old and tired, or even became the plot of movies or simulation prior to being non-fiction. As long as it does not defies the laws of physics or possibilities then so what if it is old and tired.

You’re standing things on their heads again. The onus is on the person presenting a plan to show why it will work. Read what I’ve written above. You didn’t just follow the scenario, you presented additional ideas. If you don’t know, ask. There’s no shame in not knowing, but there is in arguing when you don’t understand what you’re arguing about.

And yes, transporting lots of Argentineans to the Falklands is a very old, very tired, idea.

So what if it’s old and tired? Good grief! Do you keep repeating every mistake you’ve ever made? What you’re saying is that you don’t believe there’s any value to learning from experience.

Shipping people…that can be done just like the initial phase. You just can’t sink a boat load of people when they haven’t commit war yet. Okay, maybe you can but the British government will have to do a long term cost analysis to the national strategic standing in the world.

Standing in the world is the fools folly of two-faced politicians who want to play both ends against the middle.
As a Democrat said a decade or so ago– there is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead animals.

As far as its importance in actually fighting a war, it is is just below used toilet paper.

If the Argentines seriously tried to take the Falklands, their death toll would be in the thousands, and their military would be pretty much totally destroyed.

Unlike the current U.S. leader they do not play words games and try to blame anyone else for anything; they simply get the job done when faced with push actually coming to shove.

Here we go again.

This has all been discussed before, over & over again. You don’t get surprise by parking a load of ships in international waters. Ships don’t wander around the oceans at random. Ships in the wrong place are suspicious.

No, you can’t just sink a ship full of people in international waters in peacetime, but you can (& navies often do) warn it off, fire warning shots, or physically block it. If you deliberately run down a British ship – well, first overtly hostile act to you, & you’ve just committed a war crime by using civilians as human shields. What – didn’t think of that? Of course, if this is after you’ve started shooting or trying to land troops, the RN could arrest your civilian ship. If it fights back, it’s hostile, & a legitimate target, civilian or not, & if it’s full of civilians & you’re shooting at the RN from it then you’re committing a war crime.

You’re treating this like a game in which you invent the rules. You’re not thinking about what might happen if you do something, you’re trying to score debating points. Get real! Think about what happens in real life, not in your room while you’re typing. Look things up. THINK! This isn’t a board game. You can’t suddenly move piece A to square Z. You have to do a tremendous amount of preparation, none of which you seem aware of, but which has been discussed here, over & over again – but you’re pretending this is a new idea, & ignoring all the previous debate. Buying Zubrs – already discussed. One-way trips – discussed. Swarming the islands – discussed. And so on . . .

I’m sick of this sort of idiocy, the repetition of already countered ideas as if they’re new & original. For example, the ‘secret invasion using civilian ships’ trope has been around for years, & not just about the Falklands. It’s never worked except as a diversionary tactic in a much larger conventional invasion with greatly superior strength, & even then it needed wartime secrecy in a state which was much more tightly controlled than Argentina has ever been, which was already involved in a much bigger war in which it could hide the preparations, & using existing nationally-owned ships on their normal routes & schedules, which happened to take them to the desired invasion ports. You don’t have any of those conditions, any more than any of the other proposed similar scenarios do. That’s why nobody has done it since Weserübung. It’s not easy, as you seem to think: it’s very hard.

Was that response of the world when Israel boarded those ships and some died? I think you’re still stuck with what ‘s right or wrong versus the erosion of national prestige. Sometimes it doesn’t matter if you are fully correct. A nation’s leader will have to very carefully weight those. What happened to the expertise of winning the hearts and minds….when put to test time are hard.

[HTML][/HTML]

But you’re not discussing any new hypotheticals. You’re repeating old, tired ideas which have been beaten to death.

I was merely following the posed scenario. I was not the one who initiated this thread. It may be tired ideas to you, but you had a choice. Are you saying citizen transplant into the Falklands is an old and tiring idea as part of the initial stategy to hold ground? Maybe because i’m ignorant of such, however, i don’t believe anyone pointed to plan xxx or yyy that could’ve or would’ve. Perhaps it indeed won’t work, that’s fine….one’s idea can fail, it’s just an idea. Instead, simply stating it wouldn’t work…that does not alleviate you the burdon of proof of old and tiring. Consider many real life events were old and tired, or even became the plot of movies or simulation prior to being non-fiction. As long as it does not defies the laws of physics or possibilities then so what if it is old and tired. If things are so predictable then the British empire would get to be old and tired by now.

Those are all valid points, however, we are discussing hypotheticals, that much is given. By saying it won’t happen in real life defeats the purpose of these forums. This here is merely exchanging ideas of intellects with proper conducts, other than that it’s a big waste of time. It matters not who wins an argument when it comes to hypotheticals. It’s the exchange of counterpoints of substance and learning that makes it worthwhile.

I understand and agree, however there comes a point where hypotheticals become absolute flights of fancy and as such there is no value in discussion because there is no sensible response.

for example If Argentina builds a deathstar they could take the islands, well great but there is no realistic debate.

I don’t aim this at you or anyone its often how Vs threads go.

My joining the debate with you was regarding depopulating the Islands, we appear to have completely different ideas of how the world would react, now I am normally Mr cynical but I hope on this I am right and you are just being cynical.
By the way I doubt most the world would actually do anything more than condemn the action, If I conveyed the idea it would spark a world wide military response that was sloppy writing.

Regards

But you’re not discussing any new hypotheticals. You’re repeating old, tired ideas which have been beaten to death.

Sent to restore the Islands to the Islanders, although regime change may be on the cards at this point.

Argentinians are unfortunately taught a rather unique history of the falklands which is why they tend to be so passionate and badly informed, the UK on the other doesn’t teach anything about the falklands which is why some british people are passionate and ill informed. Then you get the rest of the world which is just ill informed and likes to play Can the Argies Invade (No they cant and they wont) ok what extremely improbable scenario can we concoct, short of alien invasion, to get Argentina on the islands.

Wheres Buitreaux when you need him??.

Those are all valid points, however, we are discussing hypotheticals, that much is given. By saying it won’t happen in real life defeats the purpose of these forums. This here is merely exchanging ideas of intellects with proper conducts, other than that it’s a big waste of time. It matters not who wins an argument when it comes to hypotheticals. It’s the exchange of counterpoints of substance and learning that makes it worthwhile.

Not true…the element of surprise can be right in front of you. A load of tankers or those flooding type cargo ships park right in international waters…again you are against not only international law but even British citizens are against the notion of preemptive strikes. If they keep this as a tradition for a whole decade…the fact is even if you are prepared, it’s attrition intially and they have the benefit of being much closer. The hover craft is to bypass SSNs, not speed specifically to land. The reason I said those huge russian ones is that they can be equipped with decent defensive weapons against air and surface, may need modifications. Fuel…so there’s no fuel on the island. Shipping people…that can be done just like the initial phase. You just can’t sink a boat load of people when they haven’t commit war yet. Okay, maybe you can but the British government will have to do a long term cost analysis to the national strategic standing in the world.

Here we go again.

This has all been discussed before, over & over again. You don’t get surprise by parking a load of ships in international waters. Ships don’t wander around the oceans at random. Ships in the wrong place are suspicious.

No, you can’t just sink a ship full of people in international waters in peacetime, but you can (& navies often do) warn it off, fire warning shots, or physically block it. If you deliberately run down a British ship – well, first overtly hostile act to you, & you’ve just committed a war crime by using civilians as human shields. What – didn’t think of that? Of course, if this is after you’ve started shooting or trying to land troops, the RN could arrest your civilian ship. If it fights back, it’s hostile, & a legitimate target, civilian or not, & if it’s full of civilians & you’re shooting at the RN from it then you’re committing a war crime.

You’re treating this like a game in which you invent the rules. You’re not thinking about what might happen if you do something, you’re trying to score debating points. Get real! Think about what happens in real life, not in your room while you’re typing. Look things up. THINK! This isn’t a board game. You can’t suddenly move piece A to square Z. You have to do a tremendous amount of preparation, none of which you seem aware of, but which has been discussed here, over & over again – but you’re pretending this is a new idea, & ignoring all the previous debate. Buying Zubrs – already discussed. One-way trips – discussed. Swarming the islands – discussed. And so on . . .

I’m sick of this sort of idiocy, the repetition of already countered ideas as if they’re new & original. For example, the ‘secret invasion using civilian ships’ trope has been around for years, & not just about the Falklands. It’s never worked except as a diversionary tactic in a much larger conventional invasion with greatly superior strength, & even then it needed wartime secrecy in a state which was much more tightly controlled than Argentina has ever been, which was already involved in a much bigger war in which it could hide the preparations, & using existing nationally-owned ships on their normal routes & schedules, which happened to take them to the desired invasion ports. You don’t have any of those conditions, any more than any of the other proposed similar scenarios do. That’s why nobody has done it since Weserübung. It’s not easy, as you seem to think: it’s very hard.

Sent to do what? To the now another group of civilians? Right or wrong they are civilians. That’s one tough situation. A situation is purposely created here to test British resolve on hypocrisy. Jonesy is no doubt correct in naval warfare counterpoints, but again, once people start to arrive en mass it gets really really complicated. Of course one would ask who wants to live there….Argentina don’t lack land. Incentives can be of many forms though. Who wants to live on lands with millennium old animosities, but they still do.

Sent to restore the Islands to the Islanders, although regime change may be on the cards at this point.

Argentinians are unfortunately taught a rather unique history of the falklands which is why they tend to be so passionate and badly informed, the UK on the other doesn’t teach anything about the falklands which is why some british people are passionate and ill informed. Then you get the rest of the world which is just ill informed and likes to play Can the Argies Invade (No they cant and they wont) ok what extremely improbable scenario can we concoct, short of alien invasion, to get Argentina on the islands.

Wheres Buitreaux when you need him??.

I wouldn’t say it was an Anglo Centric opinion, Deporting all those Islanders will be met with accusations of ethnic cleansing, hell even if people scream its not the case because nobodys being harmed. No country will want to be associated with supporting that in any way shape or form particularly western Europe.

I make no claims that the UKs position will never change, but your suggestion of deporting the locals is probably guaranteed to get a task force sent (and possibly not a UK only one at that).

Sent to do what? To the now another group of civilians? Right or wrong they are civilians. That’s one tough situation. A situation is purposely created here to test British resolve on hypocrisy. Jonesy is no doubt correct in naval warfare counterpoints, but again, once people start to arrive en mass it gets really really complicated. Of course one would ask who wants to live there….Argentina don’t lack land. Incentives can be of many forms though. Who wants to live on lands with millennium old animosities, but they still do.

Really? After the past decades and you still believe that? I’m not as optimistic as you are….and that’s an understatement. How fast did those dried up AND followed up by actions in past events. You guys can’t be serious about such Anglo-centric views. That’s how advanced nation loose wars…US has plenty of examples. The question is, do you really believe if events unfolds in favor of the Argentines, and I’m not saying militarily, the British leadership wouldn’t change course? This is the problem with liberal democracies….again I’m not judging and saying right or wrong. Please move beyond that.

I wouldn’t say it was an Anglo Centric opinion, Deporting all those Islanders will be met with accusations of ethnic cleansing, hell even if people scream its not the case because nobodys being harmed. No country will want to be associated with supporting that in any way shape or form particularly western Europe.

I make no claims that the UKs position will never change, but your suggestion of deporting the locals is probably guaranteed to get a task force sent (and possibly not a UK only one at that).

Except that the blockade is a response to naked aggression and more to the point you have just ethnically cleansed the Islands (okay deported not killed but deported on racial grounds). your right that lots of countries aren’t interested and that many countries (typically latin) pay at least lip service to Argentinas position, however I suspect support and sympathy will dry up very quickly once the words Ethnic cleansing are uttered.

Really? After the past decades and you still believe that? I’m not as optimistic as you are….and that’s an understatement. How fast did those dried up AND followed up by actions in past events. You guys can’t be serious about such Anglo-centric views. That’s how advanced nation loose wars…US has plenty of examples. The question is, do you really believe if events unfolds in favor of the Argentines, and I’m not saying militarily, the British leadership wouldn’t change course? This is the problem with liberal democracies….again I’m not judging and saying right or wrong. Please move beyond that.