# Let's say that the UK simply let Argentina have the Falklands that it seized in 1982 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2015, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843 "2015-08-03T02:30:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/21 "2015-08-03T12:42:22Z")
Not only oil, but commercial fishing. The waters around the Falklands are the last great unexploited fishing grounds. Fishing licenses alone are making the islanders rich. And the oil (once prices recover) will be enormous. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/22 "2015-08-03T12:42:57Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Let’s face facts. By 1982, the United Kingdom had a few decades experience in dealing with the loss of overseas territories. And several of those losses had been carried out by force. The British government and the British public have learned to accept territorial losses and move on. The Falklands wouldn’t have been significantly different except that Thatcher chose to make it so and invest great symbolic importance of keep the islands. I don’t think the analogy is any better than the Hong Kong analogy. Britians territorial losses came from independence movements in the lost territories. People who had lived there prior to colonization reasserting their self-determination in territories where they outnumbered the British by a fair amount. The Falklands were territory that had never had any other people living there with a population that was 100 % British and desired to stay that way. They were more like Portsmouth than India. And to just let a tinpot third-world dictatorship that tortured and executed its own citizens just march in and take over…that wasn’t going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/23 "2015-08-03T13:10:55Z")
> [@Grim\_Render](#): > > Britians territorial losses came from independence movements in the lost territories. People who had lived there prior to colonization reasserting their self-determination in territories where they outnumbered the British by a fair amount. “Self determination” being the key phrase here. Post colonial Britain has long adopted a policy of self determination, leading to peaceful transitions of power to local populations. It means that if Gibraltar wants to join Spain? Have at it. Canada wants to get rid of the Queen? She won’t be sending a gunboat. But if the local population want to remain part of the British family, then the UK will defend their right. Hong Kong, as has been stated, was a different issue, with it being leased rather than ‘owned’ by the UK. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/24 "2015-08-03T14:19:24Z")
I don’t think giving up the Falklands would necessarily have been doom for the Thatcher government. Nobody cared about them much. Thatcher’s own policies would have been doom for the Thatcher government, though,\* and the Falklands War bought her enough political capital to stave it off until the big economic growth of the mid-1980s kicked in. That is not to say that I think it was solely a vote-grubbing exercise. Thatcher genuinely believed that democracy ought to be defended, though she was perhaps less sanguine about _giving_ democracy to people who didn’t have it. > [@madsircool](#): > > Also, while HK Island and Kowloon were British territory, she had leased the New Territories and the lease was ending in 1998. It was a pragmatic move to make. HK couldnt have survived on its own. Nitpick: _she_ didn’t lease the New Territories. They were leased in 1898 for a 99-year term. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/25 "2015-08-03T14:48:56Z")
I’m always amazed at the people who just think the British (or ANY sovereign power) would just let that sort of aggression go unchecked. In effect, that sort of action is a big middle finger and a huge dare to the original owner, saying that not only could we invade it, but we think you’re such big pussies that you won’t reclaim it. Nations can’t let that kind of thing slide; international relations is a sort of monkey-enclosure at the zoo where if a dominant monkey doesn’t smack the others around when it’s appropriate, they get smacked around themselves, regardless of what the proponents of international law may want to believe. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/26 "2015-08-03T14:52:22Z")
It’s not just a question of “letting it happen.” Britain lost its dominant monkey status well before 1982, and the Falklands campaign was a huge strategic challenge. There was nowhere for British forces to stage, nowhere to refuel, and not much intelligence. The bombing of the runway at Port Stanley was very nearly a failure, and without it the air campaign would probably have been lost. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/27 "2015-08-03T15:07:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, I think the Thatcher administration could have done it. They handed over Hong Kong to China and got away with no serious domestic outcry over that. If they had decided to hand over the Falklands quietly, the fallout would have been minimal. The Thatcher administration would never have survived; **Grim Render** put the reasons rather well. The population of the Falklands was British who wanted to remain under British rule, not colonial subjects looking for self-determination. They had been [invaded](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands) by what was an overwhelming Argentinean force compared to the small size of the garrison, but a fight resulting in casualties ensued nonetheless. One photo that particularly galvanized the public in the UK was[this one](http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/falklands/british-prisoners-1.jpg) of the Royal Marines after their surrender where they were made to lie face down on the ground. It apparently was an attempt by the Argentinans to demonstrate the lack of casualties but [backfired badly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands#Surrender): > [@](#): > > After the surrender, the Royal Marines and the members of the FIDF were then herded onto the playing fields. Pictures and film were taken of the British prisoners arranged face-down on the ground. This was probably an attempt to demonstrate the lack of British casualties, but it backfired: The images galvanised the British public when they were broadcast on television and increased public opposition to the invasion. Corporal Armour’s section had fought on the second floor[40] at Government House and was taken prisoner: > > There were three casualties lying in the garden of Government House. You think: What sort of mood are they going to be in when their oppos are shot up? When we were actually lying down I felt a bit humiliated but I also felt apprehensive about what was going to happen next. One of the Argentine officers came along and actually struck one of the guards and told us to stand up. We stood up and he shook my hand and a few other guys’ hands and said that we shouldn’t lie down, that we should be proud of what we’d done."[41] ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/28 "2015-08-03T15:11:26Z")
On the other hand, the islands were full of British subjects … a civilian population eager to help the British was a fairly big advantage. ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/29 "2015-08-03T17:21:25Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Do they, though? They have [oil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands#North_Falklands_basin). It would cost billions to extract Oil reserves in such difficult and remote conditions and there are no signs of that investment being made anytime soon. The attitude of the Argentina is to issue threats, which adds to the risk assessment. It is also a considerable disincentive for any company to get involved with the Argentines to exploit their onshore or offshore assets, should they exist. A pretty short sighted attitude, but fairly typical. What is down there will probably stay there for some years to come. There has been talk about the potential of Oil and Gas reserves around the Falklands for for decades now. The Falklands is not a treasure chest, the UK will probably never get back the money it spent on the war and defending the islands since then. I’d be interested to know the total bill for the Falklands War and its defence since then in todays prices. I would guess it is many billions. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/30 "2015-08-03T17:36:49Z")
The direct cost of the war was about 3 billion pounds, which is approximately 7.5 billion in today’s money. It has been claimed the UK started building and refitting aircraft carriers for the first time since the '60s after the war to address its force projection weaknesses, mostly to ensure it could defend the islands if the issue arose again. However, the Invincible-class carriers had all been laid down before the war (though partly that was due to prior Argentine sabre-rattling). ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/31 "2015-08-03T19:09:04Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > However, the Invincible-class carriers had all been laid down before the war (though partly that was due to prior Argentine sabre-rattling). The Invincible-class weren’t laid down with Argentina or force projection in mind; they, like most things in the RN at the time were designed with the RN’s NATO role of ASW against the Soviet Union in mind. They weren’t even initially called carriers but “through-deck cruisers”, and it wasn’t until 1975 that it was decided that they should carry fixed-wing VTOL aircraft in addition to ASW helicopters, and the reason for including them [was](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible-class_aircraft_carrier#Development): > [@](#): > > The government decided that the carrier needed fixed-wing aircraft to defend against Soviet reconnaissance aircraft.[12] The Harrier performed admirably as an air superiority fighter in the Falklands War, but it was _not_ a job it was designed to do, it was a role that was thrust upon it. It had very short legs (combat radius of 300nm), wasn’t very fast (top speed 662 mph), lacked a powerful air search radar, couldn’t carry radar guided air-to-air missiles, didn’t have an afterburner, and didn’t have any support from AEW aircraft. The older [_Ark Royal_ (R09)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ark_Royal_(R09)) which had decommissioned in 1979 would have been much more useful than the VTOL carriers the British had in 1982; she carried Phantom fighters and Gannet AEW aircraft. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/32 "2015-08-03T19:42:04Z")
The _Ark_ was worn out by 1979, and had been patched up several times to keep it going even that long; it would probably have broken down on the way there. The build quality of the hull was not as high as the pre-war carriers and that was accepted as a trade-off for rapid construction in the war. All those post-war British carriers had been designed before jet fighters and were really too small for operating them, with a disturbingly high accident rate in the 1950s. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/33 "2015-08-04T03:49:03Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > According to the polls, just before the invasion she was the most unpopular British Prime Minister ever… > > …had the campaign gone badly the electoral consequences might have been severe. If she was already that unpopular, she might have had little to lose, politically. No reason \*not \*to go to war. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/34 "2015-08-04T10:48:19Z")
> [@filmstar-en](#): > > It would cost billions to extract Oil reserves in such difficult and remote conditions and there are no signs of that investment being made anytime soon. Did you miss in my link how Rockhopper is lined up to do just that? There are delays, but I think that’s more to do with the current low price of oil rather than the working conditions in the Falklands. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/35 "2015-08-04T10:48:19Z")
Thatcher made a comparison with Alaska being seized by the Russians. Although I think letting the Japanese size Hawaii would be a better comparison. In any case, the USA showed extreme reluctance to even side with Britain, let alone offer any material assistance. That should have been the end of Special Relationship. When the chips are down Europe cannot depend on the USA. > [@Velocity](#): > > What would have been the regional implications for Argentina and South America? The Argentine dictatorship would have realized a popular goal which most likely would have prolonged its life and put and end to democracy for many years after. As it were, the defeat coupled with other trouble, spelled the end for the junta. ---
**Author:** ![spifflog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@spifflog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spifflog)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/36 "2015-08-04T11:26:45Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > . . . That should have been the end of Special Relationship. When the chips are down Europe cannot depend on the USA. Off topic to be sure, but do you believe that statement, or just hyperbole to make a point? ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/37 "2015-08-04T11:45:41Z")
> [@spifflog](#): > > Off topic to be sure, but do you believe that statement, or just hyperbole to make a point? What point? Yes I believe that statement. The USA and Europe have different interests on many subjects, and Europe should invest in its own defence and seek closer integration, including military, and including with Russia. ---
**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/38 "2015-08-04T12:23:55Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > In any case, the USA showed extreme reluctance to even side with Britain, let alone offer any material assistance. That should have been the end of Special Relationship. When the chips are down Europe cannot depend on the USA. When is preparing to [loan a ship](http://news.usni.org/2012/06/27/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0) not useful? > [@](#): > > While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26. > > Lehman and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima, he said. Everything I’ve read about the war has stated that the US provided substantial support to the UK, while prohibiting sales to Argentina. Googling shows a [many quotes](http://www.nids.go.jp/english/event/forum/pdf/2013/10.pdf) > [@](#): > > In addition, Argentina anticipated that the United States would take a neutral stance toward the Malvinas territorial dispute, as it had in the past.32 However, America pledged its full support to Britain, and gave it a huge amount of American assistance, including weapons, logistical support and intelligence.33 This included AIM-9L air-to-air missiles, which played an important role in the conflict, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Shrike anti-radar missiles, Stinger > ground-to-air missiles, 47 million liters of aviation fuel, 4,700 tons of airfield matting, and a huge number of mortar rounds.34 This assistance from the United States made it easier for Britain to attain victory. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/39 "2015-08-04T12:41:52Z")
I recall that the US made satellite intelligence available to Great Britain. ---
**Author:** ![filmstar-en](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/50afbb/32.png) [@filmstar-en](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmstar-en)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2015, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843/40 "2015-08-04T13:22:33Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Did you miss in my link how Rockhopper is lined up to do just that? There are delays, but I think that’s more to do with the current low price of oil rather than the working conditions in the Falklands. Yes, I did see that. Rockhopper is an exploration company. I notice they have backing from Premier, but whether this comes to anything…seeing believing. It could easily be overtaken by opportunities in the Oil industry in other parts of the world. Iran, for instance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-say-that-the-uk-simply-let-argentina-have-the-falklands-that-it-seized-in-1982/726843.md?page=3)