You’re making a few mistakes here.

Firstly, you’re assuming that the Argentineans wanted to fight a war. False! They wanted to capture the islands as cheaply as possible. The economy was going downhill fast, the government was hated, & the cost of tooling up for a major war would almost certainly have had the same result as defeat, i.e. the collapse of the government. The military build-up you assume was not politically or economically practical.

Secondly, you fail to take into account the nature of the Argentinean government at the time. It could not buy Soviet weapons. Even if the USSR had been willing to sell it long-range strike aircraft (probability approximately zero), it couldn’t buy them. The government was based on nationalism, Catholicism, entrenched privilege & hatred of Communism, trade unions, egalitarianism – etc, etc.

Thirdly, you’re assuming that there would be no reaction to a military build-up of the type you predicate.

Your entire thesis is along the same lines. It operates in a vacuum. It’s game player thinking, not real world thinking – and worse, computer game player, not games played against real, thinking, opponents. You fail to anticipate the reaction to your moves.

Here’s a hypothesis for you: if the UK hadn’t scrapped Ark Royal Eagle, & Bulwark, the war would have been a stroll in the park for the UK, a completely one-sided slaughter of the Argentinean air force. It’s at least as realistic as your scenarios, & would have required smaller political changes & economic strain.

I agree with you, completly agree with you and i have said that all the time.

the Mistakes done by the argentine oligarchy was basicly thinking you can have two masters at the same time, for that reason they failed.
History is already written but in a similar scenario you can see the Chinese are not willing to do the same mistakes if they invade Taiwan, they have nukes, nuclear subs and a well equipped air force that basicly has the capability of deterring even the US Navy.

Argentina failed due to its wrong policies they got into a war ill prepared, a mistake other nations do not want to do in the future

With that kind of view, you can turn every looser into a winner. But every war is a time force race, when lost time could never be regained.
By the way, the real question is, how long could such Su-24s and Tu-22s survive to do any harm at all. Two sides of the same coin, when you rise the capability with such systems, that will become prime targets themselves. 😉

in fact let us analyse one possible air war using the falkland experience.

Taiwan versus China and England versus Argentina

In the first case China has nuclear subs

Argentina did not have them

Taiwan does not have nuclear subs

England has them

China has Su-30s, a british carrier would not defend taiwan even with the best Harrier available.

the Mirage III and Dagger of argentina were not the equivalent of the Su-30, but barely equivalents of F-16As in 2008.

the A-4 was not an equivalent of the JH-7 of today but of the light MiG-27 of today.


So in few words the Chinese have learnt from what they have seen, they won`t make the same mistakes argentina did if they Take Taiwan in the same way way Argentina took over the falklands

1. The invasion was launched by soldiers, not politicians. Argentina was run by the armed forces at the time. The blame lies entirely with the armed forces high command. They’d been in charge for 6 years, & had spent a great deal on the military. If Argentina had the wrong weapons, it’s because the armed forces had bought the wrong ones. The timing, the strategy – everything – was chosen by the military.

2. Agreed. Because the Argentinean high command was hopelessly incompetent at politics, economics (why do you think they were trying to distract the population with a war?) & fighting a modern war.

Arguing that Argentina could have won if it had done this or that differently is foolish, because it implies that Argentina would have had a different government, & different high command – and in that case, it wouldn’t have gone to war.

However militarily speaking they could had beaten the british would had they have the right equipment, Britain was just lucky Argentina never was a nation that could get the best in the market either western or Soviet and that at the time the political fragmentation of South america was in worst condition than is today.

And i say that becasue the Soviet Union with Tu-22Ms easily would had put out of combat that carrier, and with the right equipment at the time F-111s or Tornados IDS would had done the same,

It is possible with Su-24s and Tu-22s if Argentina would had really wanted to win and they would had purchased the equipment to really win the war, they would had win it, since with A-4s almost they beat England with better equipment they would had done it.

However they gambled stupidly since thet did not have the right equipment and they miscalculated the US-British alliance, something really stupid since the US and England form part of NATO

1. The invasion was launched by soldiers, not politicians. Argentina was run by the armed forces at the time. The blame lies entirely with the armed forces high command. They’d been in charge for 6 years, & had spent a great deal on the military. If Argentina had the wrong weapons, it’s because the armed forces had bought the wrong ones. The timing, the strategy – everything – was chosen by the military.

2. Agreed. Because the Argentinean high command was hopelessly incompetent at politics, economics (why do you think they were trying to distract the population with a war?) & fighting a modern war.

Arguing that Argentina could have won if it had done this or that differently is foolish, because it implies that Argentina would have had a different government, & different high command – and in that case, it wouldn’t have gone to war.

i agree with you, almost 100% but in general you are right Argentina was ill prepared to win that war and Leopoldo galtieri was an incompetent leader who just created a fiasco for his country and him self.

I honestly don’t understand why you think lack of a large Russian naval strike platform like the Tu22M doomed operations for Argentina. What your saying is Argentina wasn’t prepared to win because it wasn’t prepared to go to Russia and purchase a particular type of Aircraft…..

WHAT UTTER HOGWASH!!!! That your posting the idea shows how little you know…I think our Argentine posters on this board would be disgusted with such TOTAL TRIPE!

It was never on their procurement radar in the first place!!!!!!! End of story!

What doomed it for Argentina is a combination of factors:

Attacking too early! This allowed the UK to send a task force and conduct operations before the South Atlantic Winter.

Again Attacking too early meaning equipment from new ships to the War Winning Etendard Exocet combination were fully delivered.

Using their logistic resources to move lots of conscripts and their equipment onto the Island rather then move the tons of steel runway matting they had stored on the mainland which would of allowed them to stretch the Runway at Port Stanley allowing safe fast jet operations.

The idea that somehow they didn’t want to win due to not purchasing a Russian piece of equipment they were never interested in or even thinking about as you are suggesting is insulting to Argentina and the British Forces who went there to throw them out.

NO do not misunderstand me

First no one in the western world was going to sell a weapons system to Argentina like a Tornado IDS, F-111 or a F-15

Second the soldiers were brave men willing to die, but the politicians did the war in Argentina recklessly and even stupidly why? you do not attack a nation with nukes and nuclear subs without weapons to kill them.

Argentina was doomed in the first place

And third for argentina to win they needed an strike aircraft able to destroy the aircraft carrier, that is what the US did against the Japanese in Midway, kill the carriers and you kill the fleet, the US was lucky or smart to keep the US carriers out of Pearl harbour on december 7 1941, that doomed the Japanese surprise attack.

The only nation that could had sold a wapons system capable to kill the carrier was the Soviet Union since the US was not going to arm Argentina for several reasons among them suspicions of a possible attack.

So the 1982 war by argentina was not a real attemp to win the war properly. since it was obvious they were going to lose.

That is the reason China builds its own equipment and for the same reason Russia does the same, if you go to war go with the best equipment and make it your self

Where did I mention the Mexican auto industry? We are talking about the aerospace industry.

Are you accusing me of being racist? Have I EVER said that Mexico does not have bright scientists? You best not assume too much, you will dig a hole.

How do you know that I am ignorant of that fact that GE and Honeywell use Mexican scientists? What make you decide I did not know that? Are you deducing this because I caught you going in circles with your argument? YOU ARE IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT I WORK WITH MEXICAN SCIENTISTS HERE IS SWEDEN!! Do not ever put words in my mouth.

Who cares about the ecomonical struggle between NA and SA if it won’t lead to air war, as that is what this thread is about! Not the future economies. Stay on topic.

Racism and ignorance have no place on this board. Please refrain from it or I will report you.

hahaha now you avoid to say i did not know it and you claim i am a racist, i have not done it, and you can report me, slandering is common when intelligence and reasoning is missing in an argument, i have proved you, a real trend and why won`t be wars in Latin america, i am still on topic because i have proved you why latin america will develop its own independence without wars, and here everything started because some people said latin america will make wars within itself,
You are also not understanding why i said what i said.

Future war and air wars will happen only in areas where over population or extreme poverty are rampant, latin america is not like that.

Proxy wars are more likely to happen in asia because China, India, Pakistan, Russia are nuclear powers, Iran and other nations want to adquire them, these nations also are developing mostly military aircraft industries.

Only emerging markets with over population and with few resources are more likely to be pushed to war.

Mexico and brazil have not such conditions

And about calling you a racist i never said it you are the only one saying it to justify your mistakes and because your ego can not allow you to discuss a topic with another person who disagrees with you;) and who has evidence to support his views

Our specialists 😎

That numbers do give just an idea about the size of an economy, but it does say nothing about the level of living-standard and more important of the level of technology and sience. The lower living standard in Russia f.e. does allow it to keep a higher number of armed forces compared to France or the other way around France has a higher flexibility to adapt itself to rising living costs related to rising prices for energy f.e. 😉

That is correct, but here we are talking about real facts, nations which have higher investment rates are also nations that are adquiring tech transfers at the end.

This is an example mexico is one of the leading car producers, however it mostly builds foreign owned brands, non mexican, however mexico has accumulated enough knowledge and technology to produce cars and this is an example a hybrid car made in mexico, built by Vehizero a mexican car company that designs hybrids, this means under the right conditions this company can become a new car company in the level of Honda or KIA
http://www.vehizero.com/Visitantes/productos/ecco%203%20%20049v-ray.jpg

The emergece of new markets only increases competition and this can lead to new wars.

russia definitively will surpass France and Germany in GDP and it is predicted will equalize them in per capita GDP.

Most likely future air wars are between some emerging markets and stablished markets because WWII was in part a result of that, an emergent industrial empire Germany versus and stablished colonial adn industrial power like England or betwen two emergent powers like Japan versus the US.

China is the most likely emergent market to be involved in some kind of warfare, followed by Russia and India.

Just see China has one of the most ambitious aircraft programs in the world only surpassed by the EU and the US

Go and look up the predictions from 30 years ago. I’m old enough to remember them. If they’d come true, Brazil & Mexico would now be where your “current economic predictions” say they’ll be in 30 years, Japan would be the richest country in the world per head & challenging the USA for the no. 1 slot, India would be a stagnant backwater – etc., etc., etc. Some of those predictions reckoned that Iran would be a developed nation on a par with W. Europe by now.

The moral of this tale is that “economic predictions” with such long timescales are valueless.

That in part is true, however human history is not always the same. things change, nothing is forever, to think the west will remain on top, and always as the leading economic zone is just a dream, the reason why those things will happen is simple, trends and current economic policies are tendencies you can see.

Definitively future wars are going to be like old and modern wars for power, national pride, and economic power.

To think latin america will remain subserviant to the west is another fairy tale, the West is decreasing in importance technologically and economically and that is thanks to communications and global trade

The large nations of Asia, China and India will become definitively again technological and economic hubs and Latin america too.

These will make the global economy more competitive, these can create wars
for example

USA Versus South America for the water of the amazon, Brazil versus the US for economic and political control of south america.

Simply Hugo Chavez is an example of the coming struggle for the Venezuelan oil between Brazil and Venezuela versus the US and England

China versus Russia for Siberia, India versus China for oil and resources in south east asia, Europe versus Russia for Ukraine and what is left of teh former soviet republics,

China, Europe, USA and Russia for the middle east oil and african resource

you think history has finished that the west has for ever control of the world, no the things are not like these, you might think that China will control the world things are not like these, the reality we are going to see several powers in the near future controlling their respective influence areas and definitively Brazil is a coming power that is starting to flex its muscle, Mexico already has achieved the economic GDP size of Spain and Canada and still has enough time to grow and time to increase size
1 United States 13,840,000
2 People’s Republic of China 6,991,000
3 Japan 4,290,000
4 India 2,989,000
5 Germany 2,808,000
6 United Kingdom 2,137,000
7 Russia 2,088,000
8 France 2,047,000
9 Brazil 1,836,000
10 Italy 1,786,000
11 Spain 1,352,000
12 Mexico 1,346,000
13 Canada 1,266,000
14 South Korea 1,201,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)