Chile vs Argentina: Whose military would prevail if it came to war?

Sequoia1321

Registered
This is a recently released Youtube video I saw.


Some thoughts came to mind after watching this:

1. What's the likelihood of some kind of conflict between Argentina and any other country?
2. Was concerned about the poor military capacity of Argentina. Seems like the military deteriorated due to the economic problem. Does Argentina have any alliances to come to its aid? Is it important for Argentina to have much military capacity? Are there any potential threats either in the present or possibly in the future? The video said there are some territory disputes.
3. Was surprised about the indigenous military hardware that Argentina has produced. Would like to know more about this. I'm not a military person but I tend to think it's not common to make much serious indigenous military hardware, especially the more complex things. Countries that lack in this capacity are dependent on other countries for those hardware.
 

Sequoia1321

Registered
Also, I noticed that in the part of the video about where the countries would purchase military hardware, for Chile it showed USA, while for Argentina it showed Russia and China. Was curious what is the relationship between Argentina, USA, Russia, and China, and why would it not show USA as a source of weapons?
 

Iznogud

Registered
Have no current data but can give you a general idea.
Argentina started the Southern Unpleasantness back in 82 without being prepared. The country had been under military rule for almost six years yet the Juntas did not take advantage of the situation to arm and or train the mitary to even decent levels of readyness to face Chile's existing border discomfort.
The islands where not even in the picture. Chile was.
The FN FAL, Argentina's MBR was last produced in 1981 AFAIK. Since then, we depend on imports to arm the troups. Vastly moved from 308/7.52 mm to 223/5.56 cal, foreign ammo calibers for rifles. Imported supplies. You are well aware how we do when importing stuff.
Training is an overall disaster. It'shows on all aspects of life.

Back in the mid 80s, I thorougly studied the Southern Conflict. Had access to tons of data.
On of our still airborne assets ceashed the other day. Almost 40 years after the unpleasantness. It was airworthy for lack of a better solution. The Airforce went to war with outdated, obsolete, insufficient and unsuited elements. That situation only went downhill since.
Remember that while you could not find somebody capable of figuring what do we still have and in what conditions, the brits published a book titled Air War Falkland (or so) that our complete inventory, markings, paintings, crews, pictures in combat over the islands channels, etc and where the remaining planes and asssets were in 1985! Talk about superiority!!
Had an SASR friend who told me about the SAS (and friends) crawling all over the southern provinces as if they owned the land.
That's how ready we are.

If you ever visit the south, you will notice that those who work and populate the land are mostly from Chile. Argentinians only care to own the land, much less to live and exploit it while being there. Unfortunately.

Iz
 

Renzi

Registered
This is an interesting analysis of their toe-to-toe capabilities. But the actual reason for going to war would be a more important factor (i.e. resources, territory, etc.) considering how this would influence their respective strategies.

For instance, if Chile wanted to seize the southern tip of Argentina (as mentioned late in the video), they could easily do something like Israel's sneak attack on the Sinai Peninsula in 1967 and Argentina would be helpless. However, if they wanted to invade an occupy Buenos Aires indefinitely, you could be looking at something that drags out like the Battle of Stalingrad. Also, something that could be strategically useful for Argentina is Chile's still unresolved border dispute with Bolivia. Argentina could "offer" to return the stolen coastal area to them in exchange for military assistance from the north.
 

Alpinista

Registered
I actually see the risk of an armed conflict as very, very low at the moment. Chile would have to lose a lot in terms of international reputation. And Argentina, well .... Frankly I am glad that the state of the army is that bad. Otherwise I would definitely see some risk that the current government might be tempted to go into an armed conflict in order to distract from domestic problems (as the junta did in the 80s). But the prime target would then probably be the Falklands and not Chile.
 
Top