The UK is still holding one to Falklands et al because none of them would be viable as independent countries and the locals consider themselves British and have no desire to break free of British rule. Gibraltar is a little more complicated. Even if the Gibraltarians wanted to become a sovereign nation they couldn’t since under international law if Britian “disposes” of Gibraltar ownership reverts back to Spain.
In all seriousness, Gibraltarians are obsessed with not being Spanish. They achieved a 99% rejection of the possibility of joint sovereignity in a referendum, which for a free election is a pretty impressive result!
I would agree with that (bolding mine), should a country really just cast off a portion of itself, because the rest of the country isn’t really keen on it? Bit sensitive to it living in Northern Ireland.
Cruise missiles?
Reasonable defence means that a squatter taking over your house and you do nothing he keeps your house but if you do actually manage to eject him using minimal force then he hasnt actually lost a hell of a lot.
Heads he wins ,tails he doesnt lose.
Not much there to deter him from having another try next time he thinks your attention is elsewhere.
If our response to the Argentinians unwarranted aggression against a small harmless civilian population was met by(after liberating the islands)sinking their navy ,bombing out their airforce,maybe taking out a few key power stations and and road/rail interchanges it would make it that much harder to implement their territorial ambitions the next time and might not be so popular with the Argentinian population as a cause in the future.
An all out blitz tends to unite people against the common foe whatever the hardships ,but putting up with power blackouts ,overlong road/rail journeys and similar irritations tend to make people pissed off with their governments and to deglamourise causes that in real life are not necessary for survival.
When alls said and done the inhabitants dont want to be Argentinian but they Do want to be British.
If that situation were to change Im pretty sure that the British Gov.would quite happily hand over the islands lock,stockand barrel without any protests from the average Brit .(As they would with Ulster in much the same way)
The Falklands are a VERY costly colony, for the British taxpayer. the 1982 war cost the UK some 4 billion $-for the rescue of 2000 colony inhabitants, that works out to $2 million/per sheep farmer. I can’t imagine spening that amount today.
Anybody know what the colony brings in (to HM treasury) per year? Sheep farming can’t be all that profitable! I heard the thing about possible offshore oil-has any test drilling been done?
This doesn’t really make much sense. It would probably cost us in the region of 100 billion pounds to repel France if they invaded the Scilly Islands, but I suspect that we would at least try…
The Falklands are completely self sufficient, bar defence. Fishing licenses for squid trawlers bring in an estimated $40 million a year. Massive oilfields have been found by the British Geological Survey, and the islands have become a regular stop for cruise ships since the war. The British garrison on the island also provides a massive economic boost. Their economy has never been so good.
There’s large parts of the UK whose economy is almost identical to the Falklands. Cumbria, for instance, is heavily reliant on sheep farming. Should we let foreign powers invade Cumbria?
Indeed, that’s another bug for me, English posters (on other boards of course) who would have Northern Ireland sent off by itself because it costs so much to keep it, yet refuse to engage in conversation about how much the various other regions of the UK cost or how much parts of England cost in relation to each other.
Prior to the Falklands War the Home Office had long wished they could be rid of the Falklands, and had long talked off and on with Argentina about them. Possession of the islands is really of no material value to anyone. The problem had always been that the islanders didn’t want to be Argentinian, they wanted to the British, and you can’t just give human beings away against their will. They’d been exploring their options, but up to 1982 the islanders just didn’t want to be part of Argentina, and who can blame them? Argentina was a banana republic.
The war, however, rendered it politically impossible to go down that road, ever. By invading, Argentina infuriated the British public and forced Thatcher’s hand, as well as the resolve of every administration that followed her, probably for the next century at least.
Frankly, I kind of see it Dominic’s way. The people of the Falkland Islands are British, and they’ve been British for generations and generations. Argentina has never actually possessed the Falklands, and does not have any human claim to the islands; their claim is entirely based on the fact that
- The Falkland Islands are close to Argentina, and
- A vague legal argument based on the fact that Spain once owned the islands and since Argentina was ponce a colony of Spain then they should own the Falklands. This strikes me as being about as logical as saying they should also own Chile.
If you go by geography and who was once a colony of whom then, logically, Canada should invade St. Pierre and Miquelon tomorrow, just before invading Greenland. I mean, St. Pierre and Miquelon are to Canada as the Falklands are to Argentina, right? But the thing is that the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon don’t want to be Canadian, so why should that be forced upon them?
You’re right. If only we’d gone with FRDE’s solution, we wouldn’t still have Argentina pecking at our borders every few months. If only we had deterred them then.
First off, the analogy kinda breaks down when you consider Argentina did in fact lose people, ships, aircraft. It’s not like they were sent back with a slapped wrist. It’s more like saying the squatter loses a kidney when turfed out; sure, he can recover, but he’s going to think twice just from that alone. And there’s no point *us * expending men and machines just to hammer home a point that’s already been taken in.
I agree that it would make it harder to implement said ambitions.
Maybe so, but it tends to make people more pissed off with the attackers. Look at the Blitz. Look at 9/11, for a more recent example. Mainland important attacks may make people pissed off with their governments, but their first thought is going to be “The people who did this must be punished. Now, please.” Moving from defense to attack in that way would mean a further retaliation.
Just to interject a slightly down note on the whole Falklands oil stuff. There have been projections that large oil resources may exist based on the findings of a very good quality source rock. However source rock without a reservoir trap is meaningless as the oil may have leaked away several million years ago. Some uneconomical oil columns have been found. When talking about falklands/malvinas reserves, one should emphasize the term ‘MAYBE large reserves’ which MAYBE economical to produce. A far cry from proved reserves.
On the whole reinvasion thing, down here things are not so rosy. The Air force which had the greatest Argentine success (compared to the other branches) is pretty well gutted after the economic crash. Whilst today foreign reserves are high, 5 years of not buying any spares has led to several crashes of military aircraft. The Navy has been kept busy with peace keeping missions, and my guess is the army is preoccupied with the Chilean and Bolivian boarders, on account of the southern cone being in a spot of bother over gas supplies.
Military ability is one thing, politics is another. Do the Argentines really want another fight? My guess is no. There are elections soon and the populist agenda runs high, and the Mavinas/Falkland is always going to come up along with some posturing.
The Falklands/Malvinas being Argentine is something that is drummed into everyone from childbirth, but with the economy doing pretty well, I can’t see any great desire in the country to start rocking the boat with another war.
I can believe that - the place is conspicuously more British than England.
I’ve heard this before. What on earth for?
Why not? Same reason Spain makes such a big fuss over Gibraltar and the Turks and Greeks are always waving fingers at each other. Always handy to have some examples of foreign perfidy to define your own identity. Talk is, after all, cheap. Bit more expensive when it comes to an actual war, but if you are a dictatorial government on the way out, then what have you got to lose?
Once the initial generation have been thoroughly indoctrinated, it just runs on and on of its own accord.
With regards to a reprise of the Falklands campaign, I suspect it would be the same result, but over much faster, more bloodily and more expensively. The hardware has been substantially upgraded on both sides, but the Argentine budget is >2 % of $599 billion, and the UK is about 2.5% of $1.9trillion. Air and Naval warfare in the open ocean is very unforgiving of any shortcomings in equipment and training.
Yup, but I don’t think the Spanish are brought up to be whinging about Gibralter. Palestinians are probably brought up to be constantly complainign about Israel. It just seems a bit strange that Argentina could want something they have such a tenuous claim on in the first place.
A question about the Falklands/Malvinas war: why didn’t the Argentines build an airstip on the falklands? That would have mede basing the Super enterndards and dart fighters there-instead of having to fly in from Comodore Rivadavia (800 miles east). Having fighters based at Stanley would have made a British invasion impossible!
You don’t just throw together a fully functioning airbase in a few weeks.
And why would it have made invasion impossible? In fact, what’s the point? The advantage Argentina’s planes had was that they had more range than the Harriers and could get into the fray from their mainland bases. Wouldn’t basing them ON the Falklands have simply exposed them to bombing attack?
Given the fate of HMS Sheffield et al., it seems to me the Super Etendards did quite well based where they were.
One of the first actions of the war was the bombing of the airstrip by the Vulcan bombers. There’s no reason to suggest that any new landing strip would survive another attack.
Britain’s also in the middle of an upgrade of her fleet. The first of a new series of destroyers, the Type 45 has just been launched, described as being the most advanced warship on the planet. There’s also plans for new aircraft carriers, three times larger than the carriers used in the last war.