There are many points that can be made over this diplomatic tussle. So not in order of priority.

What is puzzling is that it appears the UK made no preparations for the anniversary of the 1982 Falklands War and any upsurge in Argentinian action or rhetoric. A 'routine' six week tour of duty by Prince William, on SAR duties, is at least questionable, if not provocative and probably only appreciated by the Falkland Islanders.

The BBC reported more concern over the lack of food supplies, which appears to be due to Argentinian diplomacy curtailing trade links:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16980747

In 1982 Argentina was able to conduct Hercules flights to the Falklands even after hostilities had started.

Secondly a German-made submarine caused the RN a "headache" as it was never located and was known to be on patrol. They now have three such modern submarines. The UK had several SSNs then deployed.

Like others I hope Argentina has excluded using her limited, high risk military options.

Her diplomacy before this tussle was successful in restricting trade with the Falklands, even Chile was wavering (traditionally not on good terms with Argentina). Cutting off Falkland Islanders links with Argentina is and was a mistake, such as oil supplies, medical, fruit & veg etc.

The discovery of oil & gas is a hardy perennial, announcements made and little happens. I expect exploitation costs are prohibitive, IIRC due to being in deep water and so far from any friendly industrial support.

There's also a personal factor. I doubt that any UK politician will change the existing policy until Mrs Thatcher is buried, her "handbag" lives on!

So, returning to the question: Will the UK lose the Falklands?

No. The overall price was high - after 1982 - and is now small. Military reinforcement can be done easily and with a SSN hidden from sight.