More per capita or more total cost?
Hey, I’d rather be in the sloop with Lord Cochrane than in the French frigate with some frog Captain that has no sea experience because his navy has been blockaded, don’t get me wrong. 
More total, in general third world countries that rely on the rulers having a strong military with which to fight their people spend the most per capita. The UK is third in total spending after China, it’s very close with France who is only slightly behind the UK.
Countries like Saudi Arabia spend 10% of GDP on their military, several other Middle Eastern states spend similarly outlandish portions of their entire GDP on defense. (UAE, Oman, and even Israel spend more as a share of GDP than the US, China, or UK.) Eritrea apparently spends 20% of GDP on their military, but their GDP isn’t very h igh. (Eritrea also has some 320,000 active duty military members in a population of 5.5m, which is also probably the highest ratio in that metric in the world.)
They will have two carriers with helicopters in 2015, right?
One carrier with helicopters. One more carrier with 5th-generation fighters in 2016.
Appartently Argentina, much of Latin America, and the Caribean “gives a rats ass”
Now, if I were being cynical I’d say that actually it’s just a group of people who don’t really care that much, but are showing moral support for a major local trading party. But such support does count, especially when Argentina are looking to get a UN resolution.
To the above, you can also add Spain (who want Gibraltar back) and a good chunk of countries that just don’t like the UK.
Meanwhile, the list of countries that support the UK, or even just the idea that self determination should rule the day, are vanishingly small. For instance, the US seems more likely to support Argentina (thanks for the support chaps, knew we could rely on you). Most of Europe are pissed off at us just now after recent arguments over the Euro.
So in short, I’m afraid I have to reverse your question. Who gives a rat’s arse over the people who live there? Not many, it seems.
Because they’re expensive, and have big question marks over how vulnerable they are in modern warfare. Think of them as the navy equivalent of putting a lot of your eggs in one basket.
Much, much cheaper just to station another 6 typhoon on the island, a few lynx with ant-ship missiles, and a few rapier units. That still leaves effective monitoring, but hopefully we can at least get satellite surveillance assistance. If not, somene better informed than me could say if the Sentinels that are about to be withdrawn from Afhghanistan could be suitable . That’s a fraction of the cost of running an aircraft carrier, and makes the island effectively impregnable against anyone other than the US.
An easy way to do this would be to just say sod Afghanistan, withdraw from there, and redeploy. We could also shift some of the resources used for Nato duties to this.
I think we sold all the Harriers to the USA.
The aircraft carriers are not schedued to be operational for many years unfortunately. No aircraft for the forseeable future.
No worries. We’ll just tell the USA Argentina has oil and WMD’s. Problem solved.
Not only that, it was only ‘enforced’ by the Royal Navy since it matched up with British foreign policy. The US lacked any kind of meaningful Navy to say nothing of the Army in 1823. If say for example Spain wanted to expand its presence in the Americas and it met with British approval or disinterest, there was pretty much nothing the US could do about it, Monroe doctrine or not.
The US will support the UK just as they did last time. Obama has managed to improve relations between the US and other European powers (especially France it seems) recently, though, so perhaps relations with the UK are not quite so unique and important as they once were for the US, but they’re still a hell of a lot more important than those with Argentina. Plus there are a lot of US territories in the Pacific that I’m sure they’d like to keep hold of in case China (or even Russia) gets nasty, so I doubt they want to start any sort of precedent for giving islands away.
Argentina might have a bit of support from its neighbours but I don’t see other countries sacrificing too much over this issue. There has already been a link posted here saying Spain would not support a claim from Argentina and there is no way EU countries are going to side against the UK because of “arguments over the Euro”, and when it comes down to it they certainly won’t argue against self-determination, even if they don’t believe it’s the only issue.
I don’t know much at all about Navy culture but I can’t see them denigrating the ship they live on (and rely on to keep) them living too much.
True. But no British carrier capability until eight years from now, and then only six aircraft, at the cost of umpty-ump billions? That’s pathetic.
I think the 6 aircraft thing is just the first tranche - the carriers will be able to handle 36.
I feel that Saudia Arabia should be part of the United States and we get all their oil for free.
Point is…what does the opinion of the Argentinian people matter? What matters is what the Faukland Islanders think. Do they want to be part of Argentina?
I thought not.
Quite. The whole matter is none of anyone in Argentina’s business. It is up to the Islanders, who understandably don’t want to be part of a once and future military dictatorship whose interactions with them tend to take the form of bayonets and boycotts.
They’ve been gone for nearly 200 years. Get over it already.
Spain is in an interesting position. While it wants to screw the UK on the Gibraltar thing, it also has North African possessions (Ceuta, Melilla, Perejil, Chafarinas, Alborám, Velez, and Alhucemas) so they don’t want to draw too much attention on those.
I said it before, the Argentinian government needs to accept the existance of the Falklanders and engage them, not the UK PM. If the Kelpers voted for integration with Argentina (a most unlikely scenario) the UK would have serious trouble not accepting it.
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary kept 50 (ish), ostensibly for training purposes.
With recent news that the F-35C may be completely unable to land on carriers, and the MoD’s decision to buy F-35Cs instead of the VTOL B variant, there might not be any.
I think ultimately we’re going to see a navalized version of the Typhoon.
The chances of anybody in the EU not supporting the UK in a dispute over the Falklands because of some kerfuffle over financial taxes is literally zero. The chances of this happening couldn’t possibly be any lower. The UK’s the second largest net contributor to the EU, unilaterally bailed out Ireland with loans with barely any interest, helped bail out Portugal, and is one of the biggest trading partners for Germany, France, Italy and Spain, Merkel’s desperate to get the UK back on board lest she get stuck with the Southern Europeans and dirigiste French with no liberal counterweight to balance them out, and the Poles are virtually enamoured with Britain. Nobody is going to piss the UK off over something like this because of some intra-EU wrangling that will be forgotten in another couple of months when the next summit is held.
Sean Penn also speaks out for Fidel Castro:dubious: