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.
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.
“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.
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.
Nitpick: she didn’t lease the New Territories. They were leased in 1898 for a 99-year term.
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.
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.
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 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 wasthis one 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:
On the other hand, the islands were full of British subjects … a civilian population eager to help the British was a fairly big advantage.
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.
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).
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:
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) 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.
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.
If she was already that unpopular, she might have had little to lose, politically. No reason *not *to go to war.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When is preparing to loan a ship not useful?
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
I recall that the US made satellite intelligence available to Great Britain.
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.