If I were Argentina I would do what China has always threatened to do via Taiwan and invade the moment the Falklands declared independence.  The second the Falklands becomes an independent nation the UK no longer has a claim to her.  I doubt the Falklands would be eligible for NATO membership, and the process to get her into NATO would take longer than it would take for Argentina to organize an invasion force. 

 

Another factor you did not mention was the role that the international community, particularly the United States, would play were Argentina to retake the Falklands.  There would more than likely be widespread international condemnation of an Argentinian action to retake the "Malvinas", especially if there are casualties, but other than possibly imposing economic sanctions very little else would happen.  South America seems to be going its own way anymore anyway.  The United States did not take part in the military action to retake the Falklands in 1982, but the United States did provide a lot of material, logistic, and intelligence support.  James Dunnigan once wrote that the Brits may have failed in their attempt to retake the Falklands in 1982 had it not been for US support.  I'm sure a lot of Brits would disagree with this, but I think most would agree that American aid in 1982 was extremely beneficial to the effort.  I do not think that the Brits can count on the same support should Argentina invade again and they attempt to retake the Falklands, at least not with the current administration.  I think British concerns that Obama is anti-British are well founded, and I don't think that he would lift a finger to help the Brits retake the Falklands.  He would shroud his reasoning in politics, but the result would be the same.  With a Republican president it would almost definitely be a different story, but with the Obama crew in power I'm afraid Britain would be on her own. 

 

US refuses to endorse British sovereignty in Falklands oil dispute

 

Washington refused to endorse British claims to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands yesterday as the diplomatic row over oil drilling in the South Atlantic intensified in London, Buenos Aires and at the UN.

The Argies forces are not exactly in a great state...

 

Id like to hear how you think a modern invasion of the Falklands could take place...

If they really want they've got a ten year window.  One might suggest working on special forces with the view of inserting them to destroy the 4 fighters the RAF keeps down there.  The only thing required after destroying those 4 fighters is to deploy enough asw capability to deal with the 2 SSN's the RN would be able to deploy south.  Maybe they can get the 9 Nimrod's the Brits are eliminating cheap and buy off the remaining Type 22's?

It's not exactly likely to happen but if the Args really want to invade and occupy the islands against the will of the islanders they now have a nice big window to do it.  A better use of resources would be to negotiate hard over sharing the potential oil rights now that the UK is no longer willing to pay for defending it's sovereignty.

As a Brit. it pains me to admit this, but the so-called Strategic Defence Review was nothing more than a Treasury enforced cost-cutting exercise, which had little to do with Britain's actual defence needs.

 

Furthermore, it was hi-jacked by the RAF, whose High Command have always been consummate politicians, and who are more concerned with maintaining their little military empire than providing the UK with the best available defensive structure.

 

For years now, the RAF have been determined to prevent the Navy operating fixed-wing aircraft, and the fact that, late in 2009, they withdrew the Harrier from front-line service in Afghanistan and replaced it with the less capable, more expensive, Tornado is clear proof. This effectively enabled the RAF to claim to their political masters, who understand little about defence issues and care even less, that they must retain Tornado as it was used  as a ground attack aircraft in support of British troops. They could, however, get rid of the Harrier. Needless to say, the RAF did not bother to admit that the Harrier was far more effective as a ground attack aircraft, and was highly regarded by both British and (I believe) U.S. troops in this role.

 

Thus, at one fell swoop, the RAF managed to get rid of the Harrier, prevent the RN from operating fixed wing aircraft, and keep their beloved Tornados, which, with the impressive but strategically irrelevant Typhoon, will now enable the RAF to continue to indulge the fantasy it has maintained for many years, of re-fighting the Battle of Britain. I bet the champagne corks were popping at Cranwell when the details of the review were announced!

 

I have seen a communication from a senior British army officer in Afghanistan which describes the RAF as complete shits, who place the protection of their little empire far above the need to provide effective air support for troops on the ground. After all, what do a few dead squaddies matter if it means that the RAF can keep Tornado to play with?

 

As to the Falklands, I imagine the RAF Commanders, in the event of a new invasion in, say, 18 months time,  will react much as they did in 1982, when they scratched their backsides, shook their heads, and told Thatcher there was nothing they could do, apart from send an antique bomber to drop a few small bombs vaguely near the runway at Port Stanley.

 

As our Prime Minister knows so much about defence issues that he recently referred to Typhoons in Afghanistan when he meant Tornados, those of us who still care about such things are in despair, especially as the building of two new carriers which will not operate fixed wing aircraft for at least ten years has reduced the UK to a world-wide laughing stock! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Argies the problems they would face were they to take the Falklands (Malvinas) tomorrow are virtually identical to the ones they faced in 1982.  Taking the Falklands from the British isn't the hard part, but keeping the Brits from retaking them is.  The Argentinian troops that overwhelmed the British garrison in 1982 were professional, disciplined, well-trained, and well-armed troops.  The Argentinian troops that were sent to defend the "Malvinas", however, were ill-trained, ill-equipped, poorly trained conscripts.  This is not to say that the Argies were a complete pushover, though.  Some units defended themselves tenaciously from well built positions, and some of the Argentinian naval pilots were able to sink several Royal Navy ships. 

 

Where the Argentinians failed was that they didn't actually believe that the Brits would go to war over the Falklands and didn't adequately prepare for the British reaction force.  This time around I would assign one of my best divisions to defend the islands and make sure they are well trained and well equipped troops.  I would also make sure to include tanks and heavy artillery.  In 1982 the Argentinian navy was equipped with an aircraft carrier, but they kept her docked in port because they didn't want the Brits to sink her.  I've read that she wasn't even operational, which begs the question as to why the Argies didn't just wait until she was.  I would also operate my fighters and fighter-bombers from airfields in the Malvinas, rather than operating them from airfields on the mainland.  Argentinian Skyhawks and Etenards wreaked havoc on the Royal Navy, but since their sorties orginated from the mainland they were limited in how long they could operate in the area. 

 

The key for Argentina would not be to defeat the British in open conflict.  Everyone knows that in a one-on-one conflict against Argentina the Brits would carry the day in just about any scenario, but the key to defeating the Brits in this situation would be to convince the British government that the costs of preserving British pride are not worth the number of casualties they would suffer attempting to retake the Falklands.  Sadly, I think the anti-war politicians in Britain would win the argument, and I doubt that the international community would support a British effort to retake the Falklands by force. 

The Arg CV was operational and had a planned air strike on but that morning the weather was dead calm so no air ops.  It was the same day Belgrano was sunk and then the CV was ordered back to port.  The British SSN's were not able to find the Arg CV.  See "100 Days" by Adm Sandy Woodward (the RN commander).

If the RN doesn't have a carrier and the Args take the islands then the Brits retaking them is a non starter assuming in this scenario the Args do some preparation and can mount a credible anti shipping threat.