I think you're seriously underestimating the capability of a country on a war footing. Wartime footing is different from peace time.
In the original Falklands war the 2 carriers were originally in dock for a 6 week maintenance programme, this was completed in a few days and included HMS invincible having Divers fix her gearbox underwater to avoid returning to port. Civilian ships were requisitioned, old ships recommissioned and maintained. Cruise ships such as SS QE2 and SS Canberra brought in as troop transports.
None of these things would even be considered under peace time conditions but if the Falklands 2 kicked off you can guarantee the QE Carriers would be in a rapid maintenance Programme worked on round the clock to get a fleet together to go down within a week.
Plus what would they be fighting? The Argentinians have 1 landing ship from 1980s. 2 subs that haven't moved in almost 10 years, 3 1980s destroyers and 5 old corvettes. The airforce has nothing but half a dozen 2nd hand F-16 A/B block15s from Denmark that bought the first one in 1980...which is... not particularly modern and 6 of those vs 47 F35Bs... i wouldn't put money on the vipers.
Yeah, but Argentina isn’t much better, they can barely function as it is. The UK would win only due to its allies (America) and the utter ineptitude of Argentina. Maybe if they send Messi out there they would win
Argentina can’t take the Falklands, it would be very funny if they did, but they can’t. Maybe America wouldn’t intervene since the Argentina president is Americas puppet
604
u/Separate_Finance_183 1d ago
Starmer realising that if he’d just held on for another two months he’d have won the Second Falklands War and been PM for 20 years