r/europe • u/JOE_Media • 12h ago
British troops training for scenario to take back the Falkland Islands
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/british-troops-training-for-scenario-to-take-back-the-falkland-islands-552007251
u/xdustx Romania 12h ago
It's like saying that British troops are training for defending the home isles
17
u/TheoremaEgregium Österreich 10h ago
I'm sure the training takes the specific logistic and geographic circumstances of the Falklands into account.
13
u/xdustx Romania 9h ago
Yes but that training is something that is already part of the agenda, fells obvious. It's like saying Romania is planning to defend in case of a Russian attack.
2
u/LurkerInSpace Scotland 6h ago
The difference is that there is already a garrison in the Falklands which regularly trains to defend them; it's been a while since a drill was run to simulate retaking them.
116
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 11h ago
This is something of a nothing burger. The deployed infantry company garrisoning the islands is training to fulfill their role. It would be news if they weren't doing that.
33
u/Glittering_Win_5085 11h ago
It's posturing, but posturing is an important step in preventing outright violence aka deterrence. (although of course famously an important step in violence breaking out as well).
38
u/Generic_Person_3833 12h ago
Is this news? Would be stupid not to train. Better even train to never let them taken again by a rag tag army like last time.
19
u/UnfortunateWah 11h ago
It is not news, a major exercise happens at the end of literally every single RIC rotation.
11
u/BalianofReddit 11h ago
This has been regular since the falklands war,
I think its the news trying to draw a line between recent argentine legal challenges and the uk military preparedness.
7
u/M4sharman 11h ago
Gotta remember, last time the Argentinians invaded we had fifty marines and a handful of civilian militiamen. Now we have over a thousand personnel, a flight of Eurofighter Typhoon FGR4s and a handful of Royal Navy warships.
12
u/Informal_Work_9261 10h ago
And there were usually only 25 marines there. The Argies were so incompetent that they invaded during the changeover.
4
39
u/poklane The Netherlands 12h ago
If there's ever a second Falklands War, you gotta wonder if the UK might make a big statement by not just limiting the war to the Falklands by for example also bombing Argentinian ports.
24
u/BalianofReddit 11h ago
That would make sense at least.
There has to be real political and economic consequences for a 2nd invasion. And not just consequences that can be solved in weeks. There needs to be a generational reminder that the falklands are not a valid target for expansion.
Decision makers, military and government property on the mainland must be valid military targets. Would be a good way of achieving that result.
31
u/Kloppite16 11h ago
they could make an even bigger statement by taking over Buenos Aires, renaming it Little Britain and installing a new Govenor, Tony Blair. See how the Argies like that.
14
2
-15
u/hgtcgbhjnh 10h ago
We'll kick you out again, as we did in 1806 and 1807.
15
u/Informal_Work_9261 10h ago
You weren't even a country then.
Hell, you're barely a country now.
-17
u/hgtcgbhjnh 10h ago
Yet you lost, tried again in 1845, and lost again. I also suggest you do something about your islamic invasion, or you'll barely be a Western country in the future.
18
u/Informal_Work_9261 10h ago
Oh, racism from an Argie? Not surprised, considering who your grandparents probably were.
Sorry for bombing the family home in Dresden BTW
2
u/MasterReindeer 4h ago
Imagine your only flex being that you won a war 200 years ago that nobody remembers or cares about.
You’re a nothing nation whose only export is Messi, racism and cheating in football matches.
0
u/hgtcgbhjnh 4h ago edited 2h ago
You may not care because you lost those days. Also you, in 2026, can't even stop small dinghies with mitary aged males from landing on your shores. The "Rule Britannia" age is long gone, and you're being conquered slowly but surely.
Nice edit on the racism side, looking at other British subs, you are far ahead of us.
1
u/bogdoomy United Kingdom 3h ago
so what you’re trying to say is that migrants on rubber dinghies are more effective than the entire argentine navy?
2
u/Informal_Work_9261 1h ago
Hilarious that the strongest ship in the Argie navy is still at the bottom of the ocean.
11
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 11h ago edited 10h ago
Of course Argentine bases at home would be attacked. It would have happened in 1982 if it had been practical, but it wasn't.
I don't think that should be seen as a big statement though, it would just be an inevitability. One cannot start a war and expect the other side not to fight it.
1
u/Alaea United Kingdom 6h ago
Wasn't the lack of direct public action on the mainland due to US pressure more than capability? Seems to recall it was one of the conditions for the logistical support and relieving our NATO duties.
2
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 5h ago edited 5h ago
I'm not aware of anything like that no. There are abundant references to the possibility in historical documents, but on the British side it's limited to "We have no intention of doing this" for various reasons. American reports suggest that the idea was floated politically over there of pressuring us not to do anything, but blocked through the efforts of the UK Embassy.
•
u/Corvid187 36m ago
Fascinating that fieldhouse seems to have thought they could attack Argentina logistically, if they were willing to sacrifice other ascension-based air taskings.
1
u/No_Cucumber3978 8h ago
As nice as your sentiment is.
We aren't bombing Argentina ports in any of these faux scenarios.
-7
u/Frosty_Customer_9243 11h ago
Too many international interest would be at risk then. Allies would get mad at the UK.
7
u/SpaceMonkeyOnABike United Kingdom 10h ago
Let them get mad. If the islanders will to stay with th uk is disputed, then their right to independence can also be disputed.
10
u/ed40carter 10h ago
Funny that this time, if Argentina tries it, Europe will support the UK and America will support Argentina.
4
2
u/rhnltnsy16 8h ago
Europe will support UK by selling weapons to Argentina?
1
u/GurthNada 7h ago
Did you know that during the Falklands War, the Argentinian Navy operated Type 42 destroyers? Royal Navy was training the crew of the Santísima Trinidad in 1981... Also, one Harrier was shot down by a Blowpipe missile.
1
1
0
u/conrat4567 United Kingdom 8h ago
The US wouldn't support an invasion by Argentina. They would just "mediate" like they do in Ukraine.
Realistically, Argentina would be alone in this. Even thier neighbours would rather see them fail.
-12
u/mascachopo 9h ago
Why would Europe take any sides on this, especially when the UK decided to part ways?
7
u/Questionable_choi1ce 9h ago
Leaving the EU isn’t exactly parting ways with Europe. We’re still very aligned on military matters, we give loads to Ukraine, we’re still in nato and are heavily involved with the scandis on naval defense matters for obvious reasons.
-12
u/mascachopo 9h ago
Yeah nah. You guys always try to have it both ways, that’s exactly the problem.
8
u/Highlander992 9h ago
Mate, we didn’t ask for your help. Why you creating this weird scenario in your head that the UK needs or wants help from Europe. So weird
7
u/Questionable_choi1ce 9h ago
Yeah the tens of billions to Ukraine is us having our cake and eating it.
-8
•
u/JFK1200 55m ago
We have it both ways by leading the way on the west’s response to Ukraine, being the first to commit to practically every single escalation in armaments? What about all the military training we provide to European nations, the Dutch Marines, who are trained in arctic warfare by ours, for example? What about the JEF? An initiative led by the UK. What about all the military support we leant France when they deployed to Mali? Air to air refuelling, heavy lift helicopters, intelligence gathering and special forces?
Tell me again what the problem is?
1
u/Southern_Drawing7996 9h ago
What did you give? Did you give more and take less than us? I doubt it.
-2
u/agitpropagator 9h ago
NATO.
2
u/mascachopo 9h ago
I do not believe NATO covers any overseas territories, plus the US would likely be involved, but not on the same side.
-1
u/agitpropagator 9h ago
Not by default with Article 5 but with US being opposed it’s more likely Europe would choose to stand together.
3
0
-7
u/Ok_Reference_4921 8h ago
Whats funny is thinking the US is the enemy when they made those threats so that the UK Treasury/government would finally fund their military to meet their commitments to NATO and its allies.
Meanwhile, French and German bureaucrats are fighting to sell submarines to Argentina while their citizens are here telling you to piss off.
5
u/ed40carter 8h ago
What’s funny is thinking that America isn’t the enemy.
-5
u/Ok_Reference_4921 7h ago
Well then good luck because the UK is quickly becoming a liability at best and an outright enemy at worst in the eyes of the countries that the UK is most dependent on.
6
u/Confident_Resolution Zürich (Switzerland) 7h ago
Cry more that the uk wont toe the trump line, bootlicker.
5
16
u/ThisAccountIsBanned- 11h ago
I'm from Britains ally country and I'm volunteering to defend those if Argentina attacks. I have military training
11
1
4
u/Any-Original-6113 11h ago
I think they've changed the script after all and are preparing to defend the island in a new type of war- one where, before an amphibious landing, the attackers will use several waves of FPV drones, while kamikaze sea drones hunt down naval supply vessels. Argentina's threats are probably just verbal for now (though yesterday there was a post on this sub about Argentina wanting to buy French or German submarines).
But everything could change if Milei loses the election to the Peronists, and they once again want to drag Argentina into BRICS- in which case China could quietly lease them several submarines, frigates, and 5th-generation fighter jets.
And at that point, training for island defence would have to become far more serious than it is now.
17
u/TheLeccy 10h ago
It's 500km to The Falklands.. FPVs aren't flying that.
They have no way of detecting and tracking naval assets over the horizon to use naval drones in open water.
The US will not tolerate Chinese military technologies, let alone 5th gen aircraft anywhere in the Americas.
Wrong on every count.
3
u/Serious_Bite_7613 10h ago
Shaheds can get much further than that. They're dirt cheap and easy to build. I think it's unlikely though, the legal challenges get them the same effect without any of the cost or risk.
8
u/TheLeccy 10h ago
OP said FPVs, yes Shaheds would have the range but in the presence of massive GPS jamming they'll have a very very difficult time navigating to the Falklands let alone targeting anything of military importance.
1
1
u/Serious_Bite_7613 5h ago
Not really, they can navigate by the stars at night, or use preplanned routes and correct with accelerometers. Jamming doesn't work very well, these things seldom use GPS anymore, you can cheaply have it self guided through various means, the only way to realistically stop them is to shoot them down.
1
1
u/Visible_Bar_623 4h ago
They won't do much good except damage things. If they want to conquer the islands they'll have to carry out some sort of fleet movement and action with large, prestige assets, and that's where the impossibility lies.
1
u/Any-Original-6113 9h ago
As far as I know, kamikaze sea drones can now be equipped with a whole arsenal of various weapons — at least that's what the Ukrainians are doing: there are MANPADS on board, and ramps from which FPV drones are launched. For communications, they use either Starlink or, if that's not possible, a relay drone is launched. Kamikaze drones can quite easily be delivered by some civilian vessel, or, if it needs to be done covertly, by submarines.
As for the question of whether the Americans will allow it or not- it all depends on who is US president. It's no secret that Trump's inner circle doesn't have a very favorable attitude toward Britain, or toward Europe in general. And if Argentina promises the US something substantial, some Republicans might not intervene in the conflict.
7
u/TheLeccy 9h ago
If it gets to the point that the RN is sending naval vessels down there to fight near the Falklands, they will set up an exclusion zone just like last time, which means no civilian vessels will be near enough to launch drones at the Falklands.
The weapons on the sea drones are irrelevant.. if they're being launched from mainland Argentina they will have to travel hundreds of kilometres to find a target.. there is no chance they'll find a RN target before the RN finds the drone in that expanse of water.
No US president will tolerate 5th gen Chinese aircraft in the Americas. Period. The risks it would present to US forces far outweighs anything the Argentinians could ever hope to give the US in return.
Also Argentina can't afford any of this anyway, so it's all moot.
1
u/wosmo European Union 9h ago
though yesterday there was a post on this sub about Argentina wanting to buy French or German submarines
They've had their own submarines since the '30s, this isn't unusual. They currently have a gap since they lost one in 2017, and withdrew her sister ship - but that's the first gap in nearly 90 years. The timing does sound telling, but I don't think it's hugely significant in itself.
2
u/Ok_Worry_8677 7h ago
If oil eventually does get discovered near the Falklands, they might have to take it back from the Americans...
(I wish I was joking)
2
2
u/IshTheFace Sweden 8h ago
So, would an Argentinian attack trigger article 5?
16
7
u/PuzzleheadedCode9226 8h ago
No. As these islands are south of the Tropic of Cancer they are not protected by Article 5 (in the same way as Hawaii is not protected).
2
1
u/Gyro_Dive795 5h ago
Nein, die Falklandinseln gehören nicht zum von Artikel 5 geschützten Territorium, deshalb hat die ukrainische Invasion 1982 auch nicht den Bündnisfall ausgelöst
1
u/Redditoriuos 3h ago
Nope, too far south and not in Europe or NA.
Article 6 1
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.0
u/Dry_Meringue_8016 2h ago
At this point I think the more important question is what would the US do. Under Trump the US is just as likely to fight on the side of Argentina.
-7
u/Particular-Car255 7h ago
Article 5 just means they can send a strongly worded letter to the Argentinians.
No commitment is required.
That's why NATO is a paper tiger against any nation with nukes.
8
u/JJhistory Sweden 7h ago
And yet no state has attacked a NATO country in any part that’s covered by article 5
3
1
u/Redditoriuos 3h ago
Go read article 6, it specifically says when article 5 is used. The Falklands is not covered.
I thought bots read everything, silly me.
•
2
1
1
u/Dezzie19 8h ago
I'd love to see this!
And while they're away the russkies will just walk straight into blighty!
1
u/ScottOld 5h ago
Why would we take it back, 4 eurofighters stationed there should deal with whatever scraps Argentina have
1
u/Otherwise-Basil1445 3h ago
America will moat likely give sell them equipment, also 2 European countries are selling them 2 submarines.
1
u/Logical-Leopard-1965 8h ago
Bring it on, if you’re hard enough. After the performance in the World Cup it’d be a pleasure to give you a well-deserved slap. A second time. You banana republic.
1
0
u/WelderNewbee2000 9h ago
The UK should explain to them that they have nukes and if they do not want Buenos Aires end up as a wasteland they should refrain from attacking the UK.
3
u/NeedleGunMonkey 9h ago
Nuclear deterrence don’t work against conventional threats not even targeting the homeland.
1
u/Rollover__Hazard United Kingdom 9h ago
But they would be murdering British citizens.
Ultimately it’s a nothing story. British servicemen fought and died for the Falklands, there’s zero chance the British government throws that sacrifice away just because Milei is having a tantrum.
Besides which, the Argentinians are physically incapable of fighting another war like that. We destroyed their military so comprehensively last time that it never recovered. Besides which, they wouldn’t be facing 70 Royal Marines like last time, they’d be facing a garrison of 1300 soldiers and support personnel, 4 Eurofighters, an anti-air battery and a patrol ship.
The Argentinians are incapable of forcing a contested landing on the Falklands, it just ain’t happening without a lot of dead Argentinian servicemen.
3
u/NeedleGunMonkey 9h ago
Killing British citizens, however tragic, is not the UK’s nuclear doctrine.
The UK has declared it pledges to not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against countries that are party to the NPT and are in substantial compliance. IOW attacking the Falklands will not trigger nuclear response.
1
u/WelderNewbee2000 9h ago
This can and should be changed easily.
2
u/Nero_Darkstar 6h ago
The UK legal stance on deployment of trident is if the existence of the state is at threat, then and only then, can UK nuclear weapons be authorised for use.
1
u/NeedleGunMonkey 8h ago
lol this is the UK. Not some rule by fiat discount public policy dictator. Deliberations will take decades.
1
u/wosmo European Union 8h ago
It didn't stop them last time.
Apparently that is the sabre-rattling intended by sending v-bombers half way around the planet, though. It wasn't so much what the runs themselves achieved, it's that the v-bombers' primary mission was nuclear delivery - so a non-too-subtle reminder that they weren't outside the delivery area.
1
u/rhnltnsy16 8h ago
No one is gonna use nukes in this age. Even nutjobs like Trump and Putin didn't because you simply can't get away with the crisis it will cause. No leader, goverment would wanna carry that burden.
1
0
0
u/MasterReindeer 4h ago
If Argentina invaded and there was an extremely strong response from our government, I could really see it repairing some of the division in Britain. There would be pretty unilateral support for retaliation, even from people like that all that patriotic or flag shaggy (like me).
I don’t think it’ll ever happen though. Their economy is in shambles and they’re desperate for an external entity to pin all their problems on.
0
-5
u/Lazy-Plankton5270 6h ago edited 2h ago
As yes the British practising colonisation as is tradition
Genocide the indigenous population of Australia, USA, Canada NZ all under the monarchy that the British idolize today and pass off the guilt to the present native populations.
1
u/Hellstorm901 5h ago
Isn't Argentina a country founded by Spanish Conquistadors or were the Spanish native to South America?
1
u/Wescombe 5h ago
Argentina literally a colony btw, genocided their native population and play the victim against the British defending land they rightfully own.
-15
11h ago edited 4h ago
[deleted]
12
u/Evil_Penguin918 United Kingdom 11h ago
You don't think they already do that?.. It's about being prepared for different scenarios.
9
-5
u/Dummy_burger 8h ago
the comments here are just silly i mean come on guys. take a good look at england, its dangerous there. ya boys are getting shanked and it aint safe for the women. "talking about falks lands islands" oh come on thats just silly. Clean your country first then talk about some other dumb island none of you gonna even live in ever !
2
u/Basteir 7h ago
They aren't part of England.
They are Scotland's too. They are the UK's.
2
u/Dummy_burger 4h ago
you guys worried about invasion. mean while there's dudes on small boats already advancing onto the UK. i didnt know small boats was enough to invade. you guys heard of a small country called el salvador ? even those guys knew it was time to clean up and now look at em, safer than sweden and france. come on european's need to wake up.
1
1
u/bogdoomy United Kingdom 2h ago
ya boys are getting shanked and it aint safe for the women
lower crime rate and sexual assault rate than the US btw. and obviously lower than argentina
1
u/Dummy_burger 1h ago
what about those huge english rally's you guys have. it seems like the english are pissed
-22
-16
-26
u/Lazzen Mexico 12h ago edited 10h ago
The framing of these british decisions which are standard is being framed as if war actually is a present possibility, and painting Argentina as one of those "non western rogue states" when they are simply a democracy moaning about a territorial dispute.
This is a nothing posturing
24
u/Hydrologics 12h ago
Did you forget about the Falklands War or something?
-18
u/TheTorch United States of America 12h ago
You mean the one that happened decades ago back when Argentina was a military dictatorship and not a democracy?
23
u/Hydrologics 12h ago
You mean the one they lost and still threaten the islanders with and still somehow remains a popular policy despite the fact it’s a democracy?
-17
u/TheTorch United States of America 11h ago
AKA a democracy moaning about a territorial dispute.
8
u/Hydrologics 11h ago
If the British didn’t defend them they’d take them, democracy or not, does that not make sense to you?
10
u/GanacheCharacter2104 Norway 11h ago
Democratic countries would typically hold a referendum among the people living in the territory and respect the outcome. We would constantly be threatening our neighbors if we acted anything like Argentina does.
-10
u/Lazzen Mexico 10h ago edited 10h ago
I havent forgotten an invasion by a dictatorship so forced even a chunk of the army didnt know.
I also dont forget the democracy of London aided murder in Northern Ireland, Argentina itself through selling weapons, then defending Pinochet and later invading Iraq while being no dictatorship yet we bevelieve their State and society is sane and them training their armies is no concern.
9
-19
u/BigBangBoomerang 12h ago
I’d imagine that the current state of the RN would make any amphibious operation to the South Atlantic really difficult. The two carriers don’t have sufficient escorts. I believe the UK already retired the last of the Vulcans so no more long-range bombing.
22
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 11h ago edited 11h ago
There's no need to involve the carriers; after 1982 the UK built and garrisons a military airbase on the islands, with early warning radar, SAMs, a flight of Typhoon, an infantry company and a tanker and A400M. The idea is that at the first sign of tension we can now just fly in reinforcements extremely quickly.
Vulcan, of course, was replaced by Tomahawk and Storm Shadow - the UK's deep-strike capability is vastly better today than it was in 82.
All that said, there's no chance of a war. This is just the garrison's infantry company training, as it always does.
8
u/let_me_atom 11h ago
It's not the 80s, we won't be waiting for carriers to arrive. We have strategic airbases that can support airlifting assets straight to the Falklands modern runway, which can then be used for bombing runs or air defence. That's before the carriers actually do arrive, both of which are operational with the support fleet finally addressing the maintenance backlog
0
u/Serious_Bite_7613 10h ago
The uk has about 100 missiles and several years lead time on any more, about 6 seaworthy ships, staring down economic and social collapse and Russia to worry about, but everyone in this thread seems to think they can just sail around the world and annex argentina no problem.
2
u/Rollover__Hazard United Kingdom 9h ago
Why they fuck would we want to annex Argentina? Have you seen the state of it?
But it’s irrelevant - the Royal Navy has more planes on a single carrier than the entire Argentine airforce. Last time it was a roughly fair fight (at least initially) but this time it wouldn’t even be close.
0
u/Financial-Bed7467 8h ago
The beef is pretty good in Argentina to be fair. As long as we dont bomb any cows.
0
0
u/Serious_Bite_7613 5h ago
The US has more planes than Iran but they're still getting humiliated.
Other commenters saying "oh we'd just roll into buenas Aires or destroy all their ports." Do they think China or the US would let the uk do that? They'd say no and if the UK tried they'd squash them like a bug.
1
u/Ok-Butterscotch4486 United Kingdom 7h ago
Why do you know so much about the UK military without knowing that they wouldn't need to sail around the world because they're already in the Falklands, permanently.
-20
u/Frosty_Customer_9243 11h ago
Shouldn’t they train at keeping the isles instead of loosing them and then retaking?
If I was an islander I would be pissed off that the government doesn’t think the islands are worth protecting and will let Argentina invade to then retake them.
7
u/LostnFoundAgainAgain 11h ago
They are trained to protect the island, the UK holds a permanent military force there with anti air capabilities.
This is a scenario training, which they do hundreds of to ensure they are prepared for various different risks and threats, the news papers get a free headline out of it while they will do these sort of training for a lot of different things.
3
u/Glittering_Win_5085 11h ago
The difference is they are currently keeping the isles. This is a potential scenario i.e. something that hasn't happened (yet).
4
u/Calactic1 United Kingdom 10h ago
They should, and they do. It's just good practice to practice for every conceivable outcome.
1
u/JustafanIV United States of America 11h ago
I mean, in an ideal world, sure. However the Falklands are only a few hundred miles from Argentina and almost halfway across the globe from the British Isles. It would cost the British Military an absurd amount of money and logistics to permanently base a force capable of fighting off a determined Argentine invasion.
The UK is better off training it's much more powerful fleet and Air Force to coordinate for an overwhelming counterattack that it could call together in the event of war.
5
u/tree_boom United Kingdom 10h ago
It would cost the British Military an absurd amount of money and logistics to permanently base a force capable of fighting off a determined Argentine invasion.
Instead we have an airbase and garrison it with sufficient forces to prevent it from being disabled by surprise attack, and the plan is just to fly in reinforcements at the first sign of tension.
1
1
u/jumpy_finale 10h ago
That was the view prior to 1982. Post-war RAF Mount Pleasant was built and currently 4 Eurofighter Typhoons are based there together with air defence missiles, a rotating infantry company and an ocean patrol vessel.
The British Armed Forces may have declined in size since 1982 but the decline has been far worse for Argentina. The above forces can hold off any invasion attempt for the foreseeable future, even without the rapid reinforcement of further fighter jets and infantry that is now possible thanks to RAF Mount Pleasant.
-25
u/HedAllSweltNdNnocent 11h ago
What falkland islands?
9
u/Jaded_Creative_101 10h ago
They lie in the Gulf of America in the middle of Lake America. Check your Atlas.
4
139
u/SectorMindless 11h ago
About 15 minutes practice should do it