We have civil relations with both Argentina and Britain. Suppose the British determined they needed some assistance in prosecuting a defense of the Falklands. If the British said the US -
“OK we helped you when you asked with Iraq , now you help us in the Falklands”.
Would we step in and help them fight the Argentinians or not?
BTW doesn’t the last Falklands War violate the old saying that one democracy has never waged war on another?
I do not think so. As far as I can recall a junta controlled Argentina at the time, Galtieri was a dictator.
Not really. Nobody but the Argentinians even really tried to win. If the Brits really wanted to, they could reduce the Falkland Isles to rubble.
You’re insane, both the US and British Navies are the best in the world. This isn’t 1982 anymore, either. We all have computers that aren’t Commodore 64’s now.
I agree with you with the exception that the Army Corps of Engineers do in fact construct.
There is literally no comparison between Iraq and the Falklands “conflict”. If the Brits wanted to conquer the Falklands and Argentina, they wouldn’t need our help.
The Falkand Island conflict was “over before it was over” and Iraq may *never * be “over”.
A true Hitler figure? Who did he invade other than Kuwait and a lot of reason for that happening was diplomatic screw-ups on the part of the State Dept. He can’t be excused for not reading the tea leaves and getting the hell out when he was warned.
There are a lot of reasons for supporting Gulf War I. Not the least of which was that the Suadi’s and Kuwait financed much of the operation. As for Gulf War II, it was/is simply a delusional fiasco. To pretend that we were taking on “Hitler” is ludicrous.
But that’s part of the issue – there’s a big difference between conquer and destroy. A good military has to be able to do both, depending on the orders that come down the chain of command.
Reducing the Falkland Isles, or any other chunk of land, to rubble is easy with modern conventional weaponry. Taking it over and making use of the land is a whole nother ball game.
No, there may be another reason.
I believe there are some productive fishing areas around those islands. Traditionally, countries can make laws to control & regulate fishing in areas inside ‘international waters’, which is defined as 3 miles, 12 miles, up to 100 miles offshore.
So whomever controls these islands also controls the seabed (both fishing & offshore oil drilling) around them.
Um… the islands are home to about 3,000 people of British ancestry who very much want to remain so. The British military objective never was, and foreseeably never will be, to lay waste to the Falklands.
I think this is the key factor that has changed. Amphibious invasions of a defended island are tricky and expensive. Last time round the Argentinians overwhelmed a handful of Royal Marines who had nothing heavier than machine guns and squad AT weapons, and then defended the islands well enough to inflict substantial casualties on the Task Force.
If a rematch was attempted, the Argentine armed forces (not in great shape currently, as noted) would need to tackle some actual proper defences, including reasonably modern aircraft armed with modern anti-ship missiles operating well within their tactical radius, so the Royal Navy might well not even be needed. The whole purpose of the current military setup on the islands, after all, to deter another invasion attempt.
I don’t buy the idea that RN couldn’t hold off the Argentine Navy. A single nuclear submarine in the area would be a disaster for the Argentines.
If your idea of winning involves “reducing the Falkland Islands to rubble” then it’s not much of a victory. Recovering your occupied possessions isn’t supposed to involve destroy everything and kill everyone.
I don’t see another conflict in the medium term. Their navy is even less capable now than it was then and we do pay some attention to the place now.
A couple of sub-launched tomahawks taking out La Casa Rosada and the rest of Plaza de Mayo will make any attempt to invade the Falkland Islands very painful for the Argentinian government and relatively cheap to resolve for the UK government (compared to 1982’s effort).
Well, if you’re cynical and value the islands for their fishing and mineral rights, what’s the problem? 
It might make the country run a little more efficiently though, although you might want to leave out Plaza de Mayo, that is occupied by some mothers of those vanished in the dirty war.
That said there is a difference between engaging in combat over a remote disputed territory and actually launching attacks on a civilian government, which on the international scene probably wouldn’t play out too well for the UK.
Please don’t think I was advocating that that should happen.
Not at all, and when Cristina and her ministers visit the UK feel free to take them shopping and let them know there is no need to hurry back.
I was just doubting how effective a military strike against any heads of government would be.
(BTW I am an English ex pat living long term in Argentina)
Elendil’s Heir:
Gee, is that all that they want? What if the Argentines promised these people that their ancestors can remain British, would the UK them be willing to give up the Falklands?
I believe the UK has stated the Falkland islanders right to self determination is paramount. So if the Argentinean government offered this and the Islanders agreed, then the UK would have to give up the islands. Now the chances of that ever happening are some what remote.
I am also not sure that the Argentine government can make any promises over whose descendants get to be British, that is up to the British government. It is only post Falkland conflict that the right to full British citizenship for the islanders was restored.