Yet Another Falklands Flare Up

[Gen.Mannerheim]

Also bare in mind that Astute class submarines are the most advanced sub in the RN whereas the Churchill class was nearing the end of its service.

Indeed and this time around our SSN's have the ability to launch cruise missiles, rendering Argentine air bases open to attack.

Just because you have better tech doesn't automatically mean you will win. History is full of examples of this.

Also, even with the updated numbers, if there was a renewed Falkland War the Royal Navy would have to almost entirely commit all their resources to the theater, doubly so if they have no official allies. Britain's best course is still to try and find a way to extend NATO protection south.

 

[Quackers]

Well that analysis would hold true for any conflict Britain is in. If we can spread the military and hence cost burden onto foreign nations it will always be better for us. Of course you have to add in the deterrent that solidarity has too.

If thats true for everything then surely it is useless?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In the kind of limited war a Falklands II would be, superior tech would be the deciding factor IMO.

Also, I (and by extension the entire US) would have Quackers (i.e. UK) back.

 

[Quackers]

We got your back too hobbs

But if you could restrain the WOOOOWOOO'g and the red plastic cups - it will be highly appreciated from this Briton

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Deal.
Reminder: The party in the Falklands is strictly BYOSLBM.

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't know the exact history of this, but why did the U.S. not intervene when the UK took the island in the first place? Why didn't they use the Monroe Doctrine to defend Argentina?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

I'm guessing no one wanted yet another war with England. So we just kept our mouths shut. The fact is, we should have backed that up. The island should belong to Argentina.

 

[filli_noctus]

I don't know the exact history of this, but why did the U.S. not intervene when the UK took the island in the first place? Why didn't they use the Monroe Doctrine to defend Argentina?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

I'm guessing no one wanted yet another war with England. So we just kept our mouths shut. The fact is, we should have backed that up. The island should belong to Argentina.

Primarily because the British claim predates Argentina by 150 years, the Monroe Doctrine by 60 years and the United States by 10 years.

 

[ace99]

\
Also, I (and by extension the entire US) would have Quackers (i.e. UK) back.

Speak for yourself. I have no desire to help the UK in an imperialistic war to retain a bunch of cold rocks and sheep.

 

[imperialman]

I don't know the exact history of this, but why did the U.S. not intervene when the UK took the island in the first place? Why didn't they use the Monroe Doctrine to defend Argentina?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

I'm guessing no one wanted yet another war with England. So we just kept our mouths shut. The fact is, we should have backed that up. The island should belong to Argentina.

Firstly: Neither the US nor Monroe Doctrine existed in 1765.

Secondly: It's the UK not England.

Thirdly: On what possible grounds do you have to say the islands should be Argentine?

 

[Virote_Considon]

Why didn't they use the Monroe Doctrine to defend Argentina?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

I'm guessing no one wanted yet another war with England. So we just kept our mouths shut. The fact is, we should have backed that up. The island should belong to Argentina.

From the article you linked:

The Doctrine noted that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.

So even by the Monroe Doctrine's own standards it was fair game for the islands to remain British. There's literally no leg for the Argentines to stand on with their claim.

 

[WindFish]

Just because you have better tech doesn't automatically mean you will win. History is full of examples of this.

The only way to beat superior tech is have over whelming numbers, numbers that the Argentinians don't possess.

 

[Borachio]

The only way to beat superior tech is have over whelming numbers, numbers that the Argentinians don't possess.

Um. This isn't true.

There was a case in Ancient China - that I can't remember anything about except that some group with inferior numbers and technology won.

I think you need superior motivation and/or tactics to win against superior technology, more than anything.

 

[Cutlass]

I do hope the Argentines have replaced their Pucarás - we shot those down with our rifles last time!



They gave us considerable logistical support last time - not least the use of Ascension Island, which was leased to them at the time - and offered to let us use a carrier, which was politely declined as being impossible to integrate into the British Task Force, as well as rather embarassing.

Well, we had a lot of extra carriers in those days. A lot of reserve ships. But it takes a while to make effective use of those.

 

[Flying Pig]

From the article you linked:


So even by the Monroe Doctrine's own standards it was fair game for the islands to remain British. There's literally no leg for the Argentines to stand on with their claim.

Britain did reassert its sovereignty over the islands in 1833, after the Argentines appointed their own governor - had the Jackson a mind to do so, he could have treated this as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine, but he wisely decided to treat it as a restoration of the status quo, since he did not want war with Britain - she was a major market for American cotton and grain.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yeah I was mainly talking about the 1833 thing (I actually thought it was 1830, but oh well). I kind of forgot about them having it in 1765.

Either way, the time has come for them to let the colony go. It's close to Argentina, so why not let them have it?

 

[Borachio]

Because 3,000 Falkland Islanders don't want to go, and because it cost lives to retake in '82.

But other than those two reasons, I don't see why not either.

 

[Disgustipated]

They could be forcibly removed. There's plenty of room in England.

But yeah, it's much to late. It would be like the U.S. giving up Puerto Rico. Not gonna happen.

I'm mainly enjoying the entertainment value of the Argentinian president. While her country falls apart around her, she's going on and on about Argentina. Hilarious. She's going to be in for a shock next election.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's really not like the US giving up Puerto Rico at all. To be similar, Puerto Rico would have to be filled with non-Puerto Rican Americans or the Falklands would have to be filled with Argentinians.

 

[Virote_Considon]

They could be forcibly removed. There's plenty of room in England.

So could the Euro-Argentines, because there's plenty of room in Europe for the Argentines who colonised the land of the aboriginal Americans.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yeah I was mainly talking about the 1833 thing (I actually thought it was 1830, but oh well). I kind of forgot about them having it in 1765.

Either way, the time has come for them to let the colony go. It's close to Argentina, so why not let them have it?

Because 3,000 Falkland Islanders don't want to go, and because it cost lives to retake in '82.

But other than those two reasons, I don't see why not either.

They could be forcibly removed. There's plenty of room in England.

But yeah, it's much to late. It would be like the U.S. giving up Puerto Rico. Not gonna happen.

I'm mainly enjoying the entertainment value of the Argentinian president. While her country falls apart around her, she's going on and on about Argentina. Hilarious. She's going to be in for a shock next election.

The fundamental principle behind the just sovereignty of territory is the right to a people to self-determination. If the Falklanders wish to remain British, it is Britain's duty to continue to protect them: it would be a betrayal to hand sovereignty over their homes to a foreign country without their consent. Yes, it's a royal embuggerance to have to govern Bradford, but that does not give us the right to sell it to the Americans.