To add:
Without carriers the islands cannot be retaken. The trick Argentina cannot pull off is to take them in the first place. Sabre-rattling demands some sort of sabre. The Argentine military is weaker than ever and the islands are defended now.
Send Roger Waters over to the islands, have him set up the largest, loudest speakers known to mankind, and blast the entirety of The Final Cut in the direction of Argentina on an endless loop. That’ll keep 'em away.
That’s all it ever really meant in the first place. It was never international law or even U.S. law, just the stated foreign policy of the Monroe Administration.
But Roger Waters is very popular here!
Cite: http://www.rogerwaterstours.com/index.php/roger-waters-wall-tour-in-argentina-for-9th-concert/
Of course he isn’t as popular as his Jewish cousin Kosher Waters
The Monroe Doctrine referred to expansion of European influence in the Americas, not to enforcement of existing sovereign claims.
HMS Illustrious is still in service. It’s been converted to a helicopter carrier but the RN could probably refit it and fill it with mothballed Sea Harriers in a matter of months. The Harriers would be 10 years out of date, of course, but still more than a match for Argentina’s Mirage IIIs.
The Type 45 destroyers aren’t particularly graceful looking, but they have typically good RN names: Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender and, err, Duncan.
Wonder how long it took the sailors on board to rename it HMS Gormless.
Who gives a rats ass? The inhabitants want to be part of the UK, not Argentina. That is the absolutely clear ruling.
That was too much!!! “El músico que le hizo un bris al Rock y Pop”
The aircraft carriers haven’t gone forever. They are currently building two, one of which is scheduled to be in service by 2016 and they will be the largest ships the Royal Navy has ever built.
So if Argentina is going to plan and execute an invasion then they’d better hurry up.
The first one is being assembled within an hours drive of me. Unfortunately they are supposed to be going to fly the F-35. So, yeah.
The second one is already scheduled to be mothballed upon completion (and will probably be sold to the French to replace the Clemenceaux).
To replace the Charles de Gaulle. I can see that being in part-exchange for a bunch of Rafales so that the UK has something to fly off the new carrier.
Plans change all the time. If we need it, plans will change.
I think Cameron is right to focus his rhetoric entirely on the self-determination angle. It’s a very powerful argument, and portrays the Argentinians badly without having to say anything. If he has any sense, he’ll continue to say “Nothing to say on the matter other than that we support the Falklanders’ right to self determination”. He doesn’t need to get drawn into any other argument.
Why in the world did Britain, once the owner of the biggest most badass Navy on the planet, ever get rid of aircraft carriers? Its not like they would need twenty of them, but 2 or 3 would be pretty handy.
(1) They’re quite expensive.
(2) Various NATO agreements led to the Royal Navy assuming primary responsibility for anti-submarine warfare in the Atlantic. Aircraft carriers aren’t very useful for hunting submarines. Helicopter carriers, other submarines and smaller warships are.
(3) The UK defence industry is more centralized than the US one. That means defence programs are easier to kill off by successive governments, because all the lost votes tend to be centralized in a few constituencies.
“Peter” Capusotto is the best, I usuall look in youtube for “Peter Capusoto y sus videos”, but I think they are available in his blogtoo.
Politics. Budgets. Lobbyists. The usual.
Horatio Nelson is turning over in his grave.
At least it’s full of spirits.
The UK still spends more on defence than any country in the world other than the US and China. I think Nelson’s probably doing alright.