Replies

Going to be interesting to see how Argentina’s dilapidated military fares against the UK’s depleted, woke, and nearly non-existent military.

My money is still with Argentina, unless the UK can get a division (if they even have that many troops) down there first.

I suspect the UK's navy, namely submarines, would be decisive in an actual engagement. But does the UK have the political will to use it decisively?

I'm guessing about 50:50. If it weren't for the Falkland Islanders voting overwhelmingly in referenda to remain British (96% was the lower vote), my money would be on Argentina negotiating the islands away without a shot fired or troop deployed.

One very cynical wild card: Argentine politicians keep using the Falkland Islands as a distraction from domestic political problems- it's practically a tradition at this point. Would any individual leader really want to get them back and lose that nice, shiny distraction forever? Can't fire people up over "Los Malvinas" if they've been taken from the UK...

*The Argentines have never colonized The Falklands. The Brits have been there since 1833.* Monroe spoke of it in 1823-no teeth?Or do the Argentines have more balls?

*I remember reading back during the first Falklands War that there is a good possibility of oil being nearby these islands and that is the reason Argentina wants them..* All of which is true none of which is relevant.

*distraction from domestic political problems- it’s practically a tradition at this point.* Wag the dog it works.

I suspect the UK's navy, namely submarines, would be decisive in an actual engagement. But does the UK have the political will to use it decisively?

If Javier Milei is smart, he'll send 1,000 Argentines on fishing boats to the Falklands. Then they'll put their flag on the islands. What will the Brits do about that? Tony Blair will have ordered the troops to fire back to defend the islands.

But what will Rishi Sunak do in this scenario?