Actually right now you have no ships and no submarines in the Malvinas, guess they were too expensive to be wasted there and needed somewhere else.
There are 3 ships in the Falklands, and a Hunter Killer submarine. And you have seen what we can easily deploy in days, that includes a helicopter carrier and 2 nuclear submarines.
And the rapier missiles were even less effective than a 40mm bofors gun in the last confilct.
Several Argentine aircraft were shot down by the Rapier missile system.
Anyway, that does not matter because the Ministry of Defence are replacing them now with a new missile system, to cost £228 million pounds
As for the typhoons any runway can be bombed and wrecked, as you did in 1983.
Your bombers would not be able to get across to the runway without being shot down. How do you propose you would bomb and wreck them? The Typhoons would shoot the bombers down with their air to air missiles.
And weapons can be acquired easely, yours will be more obsolete every year, we can acquire new airplanes any time in the future, it's not like we don't have offers.
They wont be obsolete for a long time, and so can we.
Offers from whom?
This was offered to us not long ago, and could had disabled your defenses whle putting down bombs on your runway at the same time, one SU-24 can carry 8.000 kilograms of bombs.
Firstly, it was an offer, you are unlikely to get it, and the Typhoons are also housed in hardened shelters, and such is the size of the airfield that runway-denial weapons would be unable to inhibit operations to any appreciable extent.
About the SU-24's, the Russians said they might supply you with two. Its unlikely that'll happen, and they will be shot down anyway. In February 2015, Khibiny jammer's Russian manufacturer KRET' website claimed that Khibiny had not been installed on Su-24 fighter jets
Commandos prepping sabbotage before a main invasion force is deployed are just as effective and compensates for lack of technology.
That's just bullshit, they would not be able to get onto the beach. First of all the ships radar would detect them, and secondly they could not use a submarine because either the ships radar would detect that or our submarine would. Its unfeasible.
There are over 1000 British Army troops on the island, not just a convent like last time, and that includes Royal Marines. It would be very hard for them to do anything.
In modern warfare no fortress is impregnable, you better stop thinking in medieval terms.
Your air force consists of imported aircraft, most of them old. Argentina has about 20 30 year old fighter jets and 12 ships. You have only two submarines with several poorly armed and equipped cruisers. The bulk of the Argentinian navy is confined to port because of a lack of spares and engine problems.
Its impregnable to you.
I am not thinking in medieval terms. However you need to start thinking in realistic terms.
And by the way, you no longuer own the water around the Malvinas anymore, enough time we'll get the whole thing without firing a bullet.
How exactly? You own the water, it does not mean anything. You won't be able to get the actual islands.
Doesn't mean we are not willing to fight for them though.
You can try fighting for them, it won't go well for you.
The only reason your government makes such a fuss is to distract you from the state you are in. You just defaulted for the 8th time, and you have huge foreign debt (partly because of the last invasion).
“There is absolutely no chance of another invasion from the mainland,” says the recently appointed Secretary of State for Malvinas affairs. “We as a nation – the government, the senate, the house of representatives – have repeatedly stated that we do not seek a military solution
This one statement debunks the idea of a Falklands war 2
, and some of them are actually quite viable for Argentina, so no spoilers!
