I’ll be honest. When I first started researching hypersonic missiles and the Falkland Islands, it felt like a subject more suited to a defence think-tank than a Lib Dem blog. But the events of the past 48 hours have changed my mind and I think they should change yours too.
Argentine President Javier Milei has declared that he is doing “everything humanly possible” to return the Falklands to Argentine hands. That alone would be manageable. What is far more alarming is the backdrop: a leaked Pentagon memo has proposed withdrawing American diplomatic support for British sovereignty over the islands as punishment, apparently, for Britain’s refusal to participate in US strikes against Iran. In a single week, the two pillars Britain has traditionally leaned on: the Special Relationship and Argentine diplomatic restraint have both wobbled badly.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe in the rule of law, self-determination, and the rights of people to choose their own future. In 2013, 99.8% of Falkland Islanders voted to remain British. That democratic mandate is beyond question. Our obligation to defend those 3,200 people is not optional, it is constitutional and moral. But right now, I am not convinced we have the tools to do it quickly enough.
Here is the uncomfortable truth about our current Falklands garrison. RAF Mount Pleasant hosts between 1,000 and 2,000 personnel, just four Typhoon fighters, Sky Sabre air defence batteries, and a single patrol vessel. It is a holding force brave and professional, but not one designed to resist a determined modern assault alone. In 1982, Argentina invaded partly because a token garrison and the rumoured withdrawal of HMS Endurance convinced Buenos Aires that Britain wouldn’t or couldn’t respond. We must never allow that miscalculation again.
The problem is geography and time. A carrier strike group sailing from Portsmouth takes approximately 15 days to reach the South Atlantic, travelling around 500 miles a day. In those 15 days, our small garrison is essentially on its own. That is the window any adversary would exploit.
This is where the case for hypersonic missiles becomes, for me, not a hawkish indulgence but a liberal necessity. Hypersonic missiles travel at Mach 5 and above, over 3,800 mph. At that speed, a weapon launched from a British submarine already in the South Atlantic reaches its target in minutes. One fired from the UK mainland arrives in under two hours. The arithmetic of deterrence changes completely. An adversary can no longer assume they have days to act before Britain responds, that window collapses to nothing.
The UK is already investing in this capability. A £1 billion Hypersonic Technologies Framework has engaged 90 companies to develop Britain’s first sovereign hypersonic missile, with a demonstrator targeted by the end of the decade. Lockheed Martin has even proposed building a UK production facility for its Mach 5 Mako missile, compatible with RAF Typhoons, offering a near-term off-the-shelf option while our sovereign programme matures.
The strategic logic is straightforward: missiles launched from submarines and aircraft in the first hours of any crisis suppress enemy air bases, naval ports, and command centres, buying the 15 days our carriers need to arrive and finish the job. The garrison holds. The missiles buy time. The task force wins the peace.
I am not arguing we abandon diplomacy — that must always be our first language. Milei himself has said he prefers to resolve this “within the framework of peace,” and we should hold him to that. But the lesson of 1982, and of this week’s Pentagon memo, is the same: Britain cannot outsource its security to goodwill, American or otherwise.
A sovereign hypersonic capability is not warmongering. It is the most liberal thing we can invest in, the guarantee that the democratic will of 3,200 islanders, expressed by 99.8% of the vote, can never again be overturned by military force while Britain scrambles to respond.
We owe them that.
* Mo Waqas is a vice chair of the Liberal Democrats' Racial Diversity Campaign and was the PPC for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A swamp of lies and disinformation
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Peter Martin
Rob Heale
Maat (Bristol)
Mick Taylor
Jason Connor
19 Comments
Might it be worth considering a more realistic/practical approach which is to pay the Falklanders well to leave difficult-to-defend Falkland Islands, cede tham to Argentina and go 50%/50% on the minreal assets?
P. S. How did “The Iron Lady” react to the American invasion of Commonwealth country Grenada?
P. P. S. Might America now be more of a threat to the U.K. than China?
Mo Waqas. “with a demonstration planned before the end of the decade”. So Mr Milei has four years at least before any such missile will be available to be concerned about. Is Mr Waqas seriously suggesting that the UK mount another Falklands task force 44 years after the last one?
Are the Falklands so strategically important that we have to retain them? I really don’t know, but I do know that the price in human terms of being able to defend against an Argentinian invasion is very high indeed and who is to say a task force would be successful this time round.
A much cheaper alternative is to offer to relocate the islanders, pay all their costs and offer serious compensation. The Falklands could then be stripped of anything of value and the Argentinians would be left with a rocky outcrop.
No deaths, no battles, no Belgranos and an expensive liability shed.
Of course we should try diplomacy, but the reality is that this problem is going to pop up- every 40 years or so, whenever an Argentine President feels the need to be warlike. Are we really going to send a taskforce every time this happens?
As for Trump and the US Government, to hell with them. Time we made alliances with people we can trust not unhinged autocrats
Mick /Steve What about the wishes of the 3,200 British inhabitants – most born there. Maybe they don’t want to relocate irrespective of any financial incentive . Would you be happy to remove them by force against their wishes.
@Craig. In an ideal world the voices of the 3200 inhabitants of the Falklands would be paramount. But we live in an increasingly dangerous world, where diplomacy has been abandoned in favour of the tyranny of the strongest and where not losing face matters more than achieving peace.
This is a world in which many people take the view that the UK needs to spend up to 5% of GDP on defence, because we can’t even defend the UK, let alone the Falklands.
It’s in this sort of world that another task force or even more deadly bombs is advocated to deter Argentina from claiming islands that are near their coastline and thousands of miles from the UK.
To put it bluntly, the UK cannot afford to defend the Falklands, unless the UK intends to install a huge military base there, with more ships and planes than we have in total, because that will be what is required. All to defend 3200 people.
So, unless we can sort this diplomatically, the UK and the Falklands are shafted. Sadly, without support from the USA and/or many other countries around the world, that seems an increasingly remote prospect.
@CRaig. To answer your very specific point. No, I would not support removing people by force. How many will want to remain if it is clear that the UK cannot or will not spend huge resources on the defence of these islands? If people choose to reject an offer of resettlement on generous terms, then of course they may have to live as an Argentinian Island. My guess is that not many would choose to do so.
So, in this dangerous world the UK cedes British territory it can no longer defend, and it’s remaining inhabitants are now Argentinian of British descent. How do you think that would go down with the average voter ?
I do find it strange that Liberal Democrats feel that it is essential to defend the Falkland Islands, which have no strategic value (and for that matter South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands too). Last time, when the UK’s defence forces were far stronger we lost 2 Type 42 destroyers and 2 Type 21 frigates as well as 255 British soldiers killed and 775 wounded, some with life-changing injuries. I don’t doubt that the war cost the UK far more than it would have cost to give all of the Falkland Islanders their own farm in the home counties. If the Government felt quite comfortable in giving Diego Garcia to Mauritius, where their claim is rather more tenuous, it is difficult to argue against giving the Falkland Islands to Argentina. We should not forget also that the Tories’ success in the 1982 local elections and the 1983 General Election was enhanced by the military victory in the Falklands War.
I’m old enough to remember the Falklands war and taskforce, and the chance of the UK assembling another to retake the islands if necessary in any timeframe whatsoever is totally ‘for the birds’.
However, if the issue rerally is one of thr right of self-detrmination for the islanders, not one about fishing or seabed mineral rights, a compromise seems apparent, to me at least.
We offer to cede sovereignty of the relatively unpopulated and undeveloped West Falkland, and points West. I believe this was one option mooted before 1982, but became unacceptable after the UK forces lost a couple of hundred lives in the campaign. Perhaps the upcoming 50th anniversery might make it possible to revisit the idea, since no British lives were lost recapturing West Falkland directly. According to Wikipedia the current population of West Falkland is around 200, less than 6% of the Falkland islands total population.
‘offer to relocate the islanders,’; ‘pay them to leave’… Try putting yourselves in their shoes and see how you’d feel about that.
Where exactly does anyone propose dumping – sorry, relocating – them anyway?
” I’m wondering if some posters are suffering from heat stroke.” I suspect it’s less heatstroke than a distaste for the fact that, but for the Falklands War Mrs Thatcher would probably have been a one term PM.
One thing I think this article overlooks is the question of Argentina’s military capability. My understanding is that, following the fall of the military dictatorship, the Civilian government choose to cut military spending. I don’t have any reliable source other than Wikipedia. According to that Argentina hasn’t replaced its Airforce since the war. What is needed is a reliable estimation of Argentina’s military potential. to make a fair assessment of the risk.
But I am shocked that several posters, claiming to be liberals are so eager to throw the Falkland Islanders under a bus. One final point the Falkland population is nearly double what it was in 1982.
It is always disappointing to find otherwise good sound Lib Dems suddenly lose all sense of self determination for a people, just because it will be difficult. Just look at some of the sentiments expressed.
1) “Pay the Falklanders well to leave difficult-to-defend Falkland Islands, cede them to Argentina and go 50%/50% on the mineral assets?” OR perhaps “pay the Greenlanders well to leave difficult-to-defend Greenland, cede them to Donald Trump and go 50%/50% on the mineral assets (which we will have no means to enforce)?
2) “who is to say a task force would be successful this time round,” plus “No deaths, no battles, and an expensive liability shed” AND presumably just hand over land and people to a chainsaw wielding nut job. ADD that to “Time we made alliances with people we can trust.” AND who would trust us? NATO? Ukraine?
3) “We offer to cede sovereignty of the relatively unpopulated and undeveloped West Falkland, and points West.” I’m sure someone tried that idea 90 years ago.
An interesting piece – thanks.
I think it overemphasises Trump. He is a crazed BS-merchant on a random walk, listening to the voices in his head, and is surrounded with bootlickers who just read his flashcards back. And he may well follow Orban in being politically emasculated by the end of the year.
The Falklands perhaps surprisingly cost the UK very little extra for maintenance of forces – something like £60m per annum, which is ~0.1% of the defence budget, and the forces currently there seem quite sufficient to me. Numbers do not come out very often, but the last Falklands GDP figures I saw were £280 million for 3200 people, which is higher than here.
I disagree with some in that I think that the Falklands are strategic, as a place available to us in the South Atlantic. We still depend on worldwide trade, and it is a benefit along with other places, that can be used in the emerging network of democracies.
As for future models, I quite like the idea of following the French in offering the Falklands “part of UK” status. They could choose to become a mini-Faroes type setup, and go for a larger population (say 10,000-20,000) or cleave to Argentina if that develops in a few decades.
It would be an absolute classic of British politics, and completely typical of the FCO, to give it away just as serious oil exploration is starting, which we *will* continue to need, even as part of our net zero carbon mix.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to leak an e-mail about denying the US access to UK owned bases, rather than trying to put together a task force to take on the Argentinians?
We could do a deal. We say to Argentina, leave the Falklands untouched and as they are, for 99 years, and we will pay Argentina £100 million per year for those 99 years.
Oh, wait …….. I think Ive just discovered the crazy logic behind the Chagos deal?
1 submarine was sufficient deterrent in 1979. Should be again.
It would be humiliating for us in the UK if the USA forced us to give the Argentinians, The Falklands.
I hope we are not humiliated by the USA, and Argentina.
An excellent article. Many of the subsequent comments do not do it justice. If the UK succumbs to weak Argentine claims, it is but another blow to what is left of the rules based international order. It is often forgotten that the Falklands has potential oil reserves within its territorial waters, and our claim to the British Antarctic territory is in part based on contiguity to the Falklands Islands. Above all the wishes of the Islanders should be respected, not undermined.
The 1982 Falklands task force was
2 Aircraft Carriers
8 Destroyers
16 Frigates
Today the *total * Navy is:
2 Aircraft carriers
6 Destroyers (AIUI 3 are currently out of action and one has not been to sea for about 9 years)
7 Frigates
It must be debatable whetehr the UK could probably not deploy a fleet to recapture the Falklands if they were invaded again (TBF plenty in the Navy thought they couldn’t in 1982 though – and they were probably only one lost missile lock away from being proved right)
Gosh, imagine thinking it’s sensible to try to bribe people to leave their homes because we couldn’t be bothered to defend them, and actually putting somein a position where they end up being forced to accept the bribe after a bit because a sufficient number of other people accepted it already, making the situation difficult. Blimey.
Imagine it’s sensible to suggest that we could simply “give hundreds of people a farm in the Home Counties”. Amazing.
Laurence, it’s a totaly false equivalence, the Chagos Islands. We (despicably) forced them to leave on the grounds that their existence wasn’t compatible with a large military base – a view that I consider insulting to people many of whom, even today, would actually prefer to remain a loyal British Overseas Territory if they could just have their home back.