Argentina's F-16s matter. Sea Lion oil matters. Washington's changing position matters. But none means another Falklands War is imminent. The real question is how Britain deters a very different South Atlantic challenge in the 2030s.
I am poorly placed to discuss the military side, but I can tell you for a fact that in 1982, there was vigorous debate as to which side the US should support--if any. SECSTATE Schultz strongly advocated for a pro-UK posture while SECDEF Weinberger advocated either neutrality--a de facto pro-Argentine position--or open support of the Argentine. The situation was complicated, not least because the post-Peron military junta then in power had provided significant support to the American effort to dislodge the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Ultimately President Reagan came down on the side of support for Britain, but there was, of course, a personal as well as a political dimension to that: while it was true that Britain was our firmest and fastest ally, I expect that Mrs. Thatcher's genuine friendship with Ronnie may have influenced the outcome as well.
Of course, once that happened, we lost all possibility of continuing Argentine support for the covert activities against the Sandinistas, which in turn had numerous ripple effects--not least being the current situation in Nicaragua and the very real possibility of their once again becoming a destabilizing influence in Central America.
I only make these points because I have observed that many Brits with whom I discuss this--including several personal friends--completely dismiss the idea--indeed are insulted--that the US would ever have sided with the Argies.
Don't fall into the same trap. Hemispheric security is very important to this administration and the current British government has already pulled the rug out from under us over the Chagos Islands. Indeed from what I understand they have completely ignored the express wishes of the Chagossians themselves, who from what I've read have no desire to become subjects of the Seychelles.
Like you, I don't believe it will ever come to blows. But not because the Argies will be deterred by what's left of the British Lion's forces. Rather, I believe the British government will come to some "compromise" arrangement with the Argentine which will supersede the will of the Falklanders.
Davis, thanks for such a thoughtful comment. I agree that we shouldn’t assume US support in any future crisis simply because it was ultimately forthcoming in 1982. Washington would make its decisions according to US interests and the circumstances at the time.
There was certainly considerable debate within the Reagan administration, although my understanding is that Weinberger was actually one of Britain’s strongest supporters, while Haig was Secretary of State during the conflict.
Your wider point is an important one, though. Alliances matter enormously, but ultimately Britain needs a credible deterrent of its own. The purpose must be to ensure that nobody is ever tempted to test either Britain’s resolve or the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
Right you are, and my mistake for not checking the persons who were the actual office holders of the moment. That’s what I get for doing this from memory after more than four decades! Usually I do a quick line-check in Wikipedia for that exact reason, but…not this time! :-)
And thanks for correcting me tactfully, which not everyone in these fora does! :-)
They will not come to a compromise arrangement. The UK wanted rid of the Falklands before the invasion of 1982 and were repeatedly blocked because the islanders didn’t want to join Argentina with its violent government. The Falkland Islanders are British citizens. 255 soldiers and sailors died to defend them. The Argentinian attack ensured that it is now inviolable.
Brings back memories. Part of my AOR in the late 80s was Denmark. The Danes couldn’t produce enough pilots for their F-16s so the U.S. loaned them some. I was tasked with supporting those pilots. Bottom line is there’s probably not many hours on those Danish F-16 airframes.
I wouldn’t want to be the poor bastard climbing into an F-16A knowing there’s a Typhoon and a Meteor waiting for me. In 1982, the Argentines initially thought they might have superiority over the Harriers. They would never make that assumption today and that’s before a QE carrier shows up with F-35’s.
Richard - an excellent analysis and straightforward for a non-military person to understand. Better, as well, thank most articles I've ready about the Falklands in describing how Britain might go about preventing Argentina from threatening invasion.
I'm soon to publish a board game on the 1982 Falklands campaign called Razor's Edge: The Falklands War 1982. It features a 2028 scenario with an Argentine reinvasion. This is possible in the scenario as Argentine special forces launch an Operation Spiderweb type attack that takes out the Typhoon force on the ground.
The game is based on a game used to train Royal Marine officers, and has been played by Julian Thompson (who described it as the best debrief he's ever had).
I would love to be able to demo it to you Richard if you are interested?
Thanks, James. That sounds fascinating, and the 2028 scenario is particularly interesting given the argument I've made here. An Operation Spiderweb-style attack on Mount Pleasant raises exactly the sort of question we should be thinking about: not simply how many Typhoons there are, but how resilient the whole defensive system is to surprise and asymmetric attack.
I'd certainly be interested in seeing the game and would be very happy to take you up on the offer of a demo.
Thank you for this, and in particular the reference to Ascension; rather unfortunately, Sky News referred to RAF Air Bridge flights to the Falklands being via Cape Verde, which was the case when flights via Wideawake were suspended in 2017, but not since flights were resumed in 2022.
In the Commons debate on the Shackleton Report in December 1982, the Conservative MP Sir Bernard Braine remarked: 'To the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ascension, St. Helena and the Falklands, all dependencies in the South Atlantic, might just as well have been in three different oceans. Yet without Ascension we could not have mounted the Falklands rescue operation, and without St. Helenian labour we could not maintain Ascension.'
That remains the case today, with many other St Helenians working in the Falklands, including in the Mount Pleasant Complex, as well as serving in the British Army.
Millei’s attempts to rehabilitate 100 years of socialism, which ruined the economy, has hit a difficult spot, which it was always going to do. Like the Junta in 1982, a murderous regime, he is using the same nationalist diatribe to counter the unpopular, but necessary measures required to try to repair the damage done by the communists. It was never going to be easy. But he needs to STFU about the Falklands. It is all just blether and useless rhetoric.
In 1982, Galtieri launched his invasion because Britain was a basket-case, had been for 10ys and he thought Britain wouldn’t bother…….
……had it not been for Admiral Lewin and Maggie, probably we wouldn’t have.
What does Milei see now? Britain is even more of a basket-case - run as it is by globalist puppets in league with China and Islam…..
……so much so, that it won’t even drill for the oil that it has in its own waters.
If Britain won’t do that, why on earth would/should they protect Sea Lion?
Interestingly, with Trump in a bullish mood - happy to support a like-minded man in Milei - I think it will be very interesting to see what Trump does about Ascension where the US has a large operation. This may be the lead in to trouble.
Don’t underestimate the ability of Argentina to learn from present conflicts and use its considerably shorter supply lines to create real havoc for any defenders via low and slow drones, cruise missiles and like paraphernalia.
Unless very cheap and plentiful ways are found to defend vital rear areas from armed flying mopeds (tank farms, aircraft storage, beacons, etc) then all of that stuff becomes just as vulnerable as the ME US bases that have been all but abandoned.
The Argentinians have the advantage of much shorter supply lines, a plentiful industrial base, etc while Britain is far away and almost broke.
Yes, they still have to be able to put boots on the ground and yes, the UK has a much better navy but the British government may ultimately decide that a revenue sharing program may suit everyone better than taking yet another gamble in the South Atlantic.
I am poorly placed to discuss the military side, but I can tell you for a fact that in 1982, there was vigorous debate as to which side the US should support--if any. SECSTATE Schultz strongly advocated for a pro-UK posture while SECDEF Weinberger advocated either neutrality--a de facto pro-Argentine position--or open support of the Argentine. The situation was complicated, not least because the post-Peron military junta then in power had provided significant support to the American effort to dislodge the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.
Ultimately President Reagan came down on the side of support for Britain, but there was, of course, a personal as well as a political dimension to that: while it was true that Britain was our firmest and fastest ally, I expect that Mrs. Thatcher's genuine friendship with Ronnie may have influenced the outcome as well.
Of course, once that happened, we lost all possibility of continuing Argentine support for the covert activities against the Sandinistas, which in turn had numerous ripple effects--not least being the current situation in Nicaragua and the very real possibility of their once again becoming a destabilizing influence in Central America.
I only make these points because I have observed that many Brits with whom I discuss this--including several personal friends--completely dismiss the idea--indeed are insulted--that the US would ever have sided with the Argies.
Don't fall into the same trap. Hemispheric security is very important to this administration and the current British government has already pulled the rug out from under us over the Chagos Islands. Indeed from what I understand they have completely ignored the express wishes of the Chagossians themselves, who from what I've read have no desire to become subjects of the Seychelles.
Like you, I don't believe it will ever come to blows. But not because the Argies will be deterred by what's left of the British Lion's forces. Rather, I believe the British government will come to some "compromise" arrangement with the Argentine which will supersede the will of the Falklanders.
Davis, thanks for such a thoughtful comment. I agree that we shouldn’t assume US support in any future crisis simply because it was ultimately forthcoming in 1982. Washington would make its decisions according to US interests and the circumstances at the time.
There was certainly considerable debate within the Reagan administration, although my understanding is that Weinberger was actually one of Britain’s strongest supporters, while Haig was Secretary of State during the conflict.
Your wider point is an important one, though. Alliances matter enormously, but ultimately Britain needs a credible deterrent of its own. The purpose must be to ensure that nobody is ever tempted to test either Britain’s resolve or the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.
Right you are, and my mistake for not checking the persons who were the actual office holders of the moment. That’s what I get for doing this from memory after more than four decades! Usually I do a quick line-check in Wikipedia for that exact reason, but…not this time! :-)
And thanks for correcting me tactfully, which not everyone in these fora does! :-)
They will not come to a compromise arrangement. The UK wanted rid of the Falklands before the invasion of 1982 and were repeatedly blocked because the islanders didn’t want to join Argentina with its violent government. The Falkland Islanders are British citizens. 255 soldiers and sailors died to defend them. The Argentinian attack ensured that it is now inviolable.
Methinks you underrate the duplicity of the current regime in Britain…but perhaps you’re right.
Certainly if I were a Falklander I would earnestly pray it were so.
Brings back memories. Part of my AOR in the late 80s was Denmark. The Danes couldn’t produce enough pilots for their F-16s so the U.S. loaned them some. I was tasked with supporting those pilots. Bottom line is there’s probably not many hours on those Danish F-16 airframes.
I wouldn’t want to be the poor bastard climbing into an F-16A knowing there’s a Typhoon and a Meteor waiting for me. In 1982, the Argentines initially thought they might have superiority over the Harriers. They would never make that assumption today and that’s before a QE carrier shows up with F-35’s.
Richard - an excellent analysis and straightforward for a non-military person to understand. Better, as well, thank most articles I've ready about the Falklands in describing how Britain might go about preventing Argentina from threatening invasion.
Thank you John.
I'm soon to publish a board game on the 1982 Falklands campaign called Razor's Edge: The Falklands War 1982. It features a 2028 scenario with an Argentine reinvasion. This is possible in the scenario as Argentine special forces launch an Operation Spiderweb type attack that takes out the Typhoon force on the ground.
The game is based on a game used to train Royal Marine officers, and has been played by Julian Thompson (who described it as the best debrief he's ever had).
I would love to be able to demo it to you Richard if you are interested?
Thanks, James. That sounds fascinating, and the 2028 scenario is particularly interesting given the argument I've made here. An Operation Spiderweb-style attack on Mount Pleasant raises exactly the sort of question we should be thinking about: not simply how many Typhoons there are, but how resilient the whole defensive system is to surprise and asymmetric attack.
I'd certainly be interested in seeing the game and would be very happy to take you up on the offer of a demo.
Thank you for this, and in particular the reference to Ascension; rather unfortunately, Sky News referred to RAF Air Bridge flights to the Falklands being via Cape Verde, which was the case when flights via Wideawake were suspended in 2017, but not since flights were resumed in 2022.
In the Commons debate on the Shackleton Report in December 1982, the Conservative MP Sir Bernard Braine remarked: 'To the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ascension, St. Helena and the Falklands, all dependencies in the South Atlantic, might just as well have been in three different oceans. Yet without Ascension we could not have mounted the Falklands rescue operation, and without St. Helenian labour we could not maintain Ascension.'
That remains the case today, with many other St Helenians working in the Falklands, including in the Mount Pleasant Complex, as well as serving in the British Army.
Ascension island would be an amazing launch site for equatorial orbits. It’s just so remote and lacks the infrastructure of Guiana.
It’s a perfect Bond villan lair, complete with a massive air strip and a extinct volcano from inside which rockets could be launched. :)
Millei’s attempts to rehabilitate 100 years of socialism, which ruined the economy, has hit a difficult spot, which it was always going to do. Like the Junta in 1982, a murderous regime, he is using the same nationalist diatribe to counter the unpopular, but necessary measures required to try to repair the damage done by the communists. It was never going to be easy. But he needs to STFU about the Falklands. It is all just blether and useless rhetoric.
Sorry that those fighters went to Argentina when they would have been much more useful in the Ukraine.
Excellent summary, thank-you.
In 1982, Galtieri launched his invasion because Britain was a basket-case, had been for 10ys and he thought Britain wouldn’t bother…….
……had it not been for Admiral Lewin and Maggie, probably we wouldn’t have.
What does Milei see now? Britain is even more of a basket-case - run as it is by globalist puppets in league with China and Islam…..
……so much so, that it won’t even drill for the oil that it has in its own waters.
If Britain won’t do that, why on earth would/should they protect Sea Lion?
Interestingly, with Trump in a bullish mood - happy to support a like-minded man in Milei - I think it will be very interesting to see what Trump does about Ascension where the US has a large operation. This may be the lead in to trouble.
Don’t underestimate the ability of Argentina to learn from present conflicts and use its considerably shorter supply lines to create real havoc for any defenders via low and slow drones, cruise missiles and like paraphernalia.
Unless very cheap and plentiful ways are found to defend vital rear areas from armed flying mopeds (tank farms, aircraft storage, beacons, etc) then all of that stuff becomes just as vulnerable as the ME US bases that have been all but abandoned.
The Argentinians have the advantage of much shorter supply lines, a plentiful industrial base, etc while Britain is far away and almost broke.
Yes, they still have to be able to put boots on the ground and yes, the UK has a much better navy but the British government may ultimately decide that a revenue sharing program may suit everyone better than taking yet another gamble in the South Atlantic.