[Bobboau]

the English UK cares because there are UK citizens living on the Islands who would be threated if an armed conflict arose.

[headdie]

the end of the day the UK is governed by a democratic system which entitles the islanders to petition for independence and though I only have a basic overview of the political situation I have heard of no such petition which means that Argentina has no political right to contest ownership as the local population it would seem is content to be part of the UK.  If a petition was to be made and rejected by parliament then Argentina would have a political footing as they would be acting to free the island.

Also militarily there are differences such as the level of military force, particularly air power stationed in the area which much greater than the 82

[Flipside]

Self-determination is certainly going to be a focal point of the matter, but to summarize the current interaction between the Government, it pretty much boils down to:

"Colonial Empire Builders!"
"British people live there."
"Colonial Empire Builders!"
"British people live there."

I suspect we will probably get a few months of this, and then something else will come up for both Governments and it'll be put on hold until the next time.

[Mars]

So, it's a dove fight?

[Flipside]

There is certainly a history of this rising into the public eye and then falling again, particularly in Argentina. This is often blamed on the Government wanting to distract from internal issues, which is, indeed, the case on occasion, but should not be disregarded as the only reason.

I think part of the problem is that the population of the UK is actually quite widely misunderstood in parts of the world. We are a pretty resilient bunch when it comes to our nationality most of the time, several film directors have stated that they look to UK actors to play the bad guys in a lot of films because the UK are one of the few countries left that get confused at the idea that this is 'racist' in some way, rather than simply a job (and let's face it, we do pull off a good bastard)

But we are also sticklers for manners, that still hasn't been rubbed out of our culture entirely, and have a rather vicious belligerent streak when we do feel insulted. That's nothing really to do with 'arrogance' as is assumed, and more to do with the fact that we feel that if you've crossed the line then you must have been pushing pretty hard for it, so if it's insulted you want, insulted you'll get.

So regardless of public opinion as to whether talks over the Falklands should take place or not, the moment you start a conversation with words like 'Colonialism', the whole country will collectively raise it's eyes skywards and say 'Oh, for crying out loud, not that again...' and you've already effectively united them in ire. Had the situation been approached differently, Cameron could have been left with an awkward situation, with him saying 'We won't discuss the Falklands' and at least a section of society would be saying "Why not? What are you worried about?". The approach taken bought out the 'screw you' in us, however.

[Aardwolf]

the UK is governed by a democratic system which entitles the islanders to petition for independence

Not too long ago, I got thinking about the US Civil War, and I thought "why are there no provisions for secession in the constitution?". Interesting to know that the UK actually has provisions for it. Hm... was that the case back in the 1770s?

[karajorma]

The other interesting thing is that the Argentinians once offered to pay the Falkland Islanders the equivalent of around half a million each in order to buy the islands. The Islanders told them where to stick it. So I doubt a vote on whether they'd be willing to be part of Argentina for free would ever go their way.

Oh and before this goes any further it should be pointed out that the Argentinians are just as much colonialists as the British are when it comes to the Falkland Islands. About the only country with any right to claim anything different is France because at least they were first.

[NGTM-1R]

edit: Four Typhoons is you CAP? FOUR?! Well, I guess given what they're up against...

Technically they can probably get their entire Typhoon force there if they want, along with Tornados for strike. The Brits invested in some tanker capacity after the first round. It'd be difficult, but definitely doable.

The Type 45 is not to be sneezed at as an AAW platform either.

[Colonol Dekker]

Argentina's the PRH and we're Manticore.

[Scotty]

Except that implies a level of parity.  Argentina's the Silesian Confederacy and you're Manticore.

[Colonol Dekker]

Ok, they're pre-alliance Grayson.

[StarSlayer]

Well they probably want to make an issue of it while you're down to just the Illustrious.  Attempting to rest control of the islands after the Queen Elizabeth class comes online probably isn't palatable.

[Flipside]

Must admit, I find Obama's stance this time round to be a bit of a double standard. Whilst bombing some countries' established leaderships to allow the people the right of self-determination on one hand, he's refusing to acknowledge those very same rights in other countries. Imagine what his reaction would be if the UK suggested that Texas should be given back to Mexico...

[samiam]

Oh and before this goes any further it should be pointed out that the Argentinians are just as much colonialists as the British are when it comes to the Falkland Islands. About the only country with any right to claim anything different is France because at least they were first.

No they don't, the islands belong to Mother Earth and Sister Moon!

edit: Four Typhoons is you CAP? FOUR?! Well, I guess given what they're up against...

Technically they can probably get their entire Typhoon force there if they want, along with Tornados for strike. The Brits invested in some tanker capacity after the first round. It'd be difficult, but definitely doable.

The Type 45 is not to be sneezed at as an AAW platform either.

If the Brits have any kind of advance warning they can move in a significant Tornado and paratrooper contingent within a few days. At that point, forget about it. I don't know why this didn't happen in 82. I assume that they didn't have a working airfield or weren't expecting things to happen so fast.

[MP-Ryan]

If the Brits have any kind of advance warning they can move in a significant Tornado and paratrooper contingent within a few days. At that point, forget about it. I don't know why this didn't happen in 82. I assume that they didn't have a working airfield or weren't expecting things to happen so fast.

There are some very interesting histories of the SAS that actually talk about this.  SAS units were dropped onto the islands within a few days of the initial strike and provided significant on-the-ground intelligence to remaining British forces.  The limited numbers meant their active combat role at the time was somewhat limited, but the 82 conflict was primarily about naval power rather than actual ground control anyway.

[samiam]

There are 8.3 billion barrels of oil in the waters around the Falklands. That's more than in the UK's part of the North Sea, and about 1/8th the reserves of Kuwait. If I was Argentina I would want to tap dat oil too. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Brazil wanted some.

Also, since we're talking about 1982, I thought it was interesting that the Argentines had a squadron of Learjet redshirts to distract the British CAP away from the fleet.

[IceFire]

edit: Four Typhoons is you CAP? FOUR?! Well, I guess given what they're up against...

Technically they can probably get their entire Typhoon force there if they want, along with Tornados for strike. The Brits invested in some tanker capacity after the first round. It'd be difficult, but definitely doable.

The Type 45 is not to be sneezed at as an AAW platform either.

I was reading about the Type 45 last night. It sounds like a bruiser... sure it's classified as a Destroyer but it's a really big ship with quite a lot of capability. The kind they would have loved to have in 1982.

[IceFire]

It seems to me like Argentina is being unreasonable. I've read some of the history of the islands and while there is room to contest them...Argentina has about as much claim as several other nations including Britain. Britain happened to be the first country to establish permanent residence and they never left. Furthermore, as the current (and only) population is primarily interested in remaining British subjects it seems to me like the only reasonable course of action is to keep the Falklands as British. If resources such as oil are a consideration then negotiate for some sort of mutually beneficial trade agreement.

It does seem to me that if Argentina really wanted to try for a second round that they would be more sorely beaten than the last time. The RAF and RN have more capabilities than before and Argentina does not. I'm assuming some sort of logic is prevailing in Argentina and that this is all smoke, mirrors, and sabre rattling to distract from internal issues.

[samiam]

We're in the running for most incoherent GD thread ever. FWIW, I think making an argument over the proper, historical owner of an island with no original human presence is about equivalent to the Shivans arguing we shouldn't colonize the Moon.

It seems to me like Argentina is being unreasonable. I've read some of the history of the islands and while there is room to contest them...Argentina has about as much claim as several other nations including Britain. Britain happened to be the first country to establish permanent residence and they never left. Furthermore, as the current (and only) population is primarily interested in remaining British subjects it seems to me like the only reasonable course of action is to keep the Falklands as British. If resources such as oil are a consideration then negotiate for some sort of mutually beneficial trade agreement.

It does seem to me that if Argentina really wanted to try for a second round that they would be more sorely beaten than the last time. The RAF and RN have more capabilities than before and Argentina does not. I'm assuming some sort of logic is prevailing in Argentina and that this is all smoke, mirrors, and sabre rattling to distract from internal issues.

The Royal Navy has downsized a lot too though. They have two Type 42s for long range antiaircraft. Then there's the Type 45s, but they only have three active, and if they can only deploy one to the theater they better hope it's radar doesn't malfunction. However the whole thing is moot if the Argentines don't have any spare parts or reliable bombs for their fifty year old aircraft, many of them collecting dust for the past few years, which might be the case.

The one thing that really crimps things is the presence of a Eurofighter wing at Stanley, as Dekker so critically pointed out. They would have to deal with that first. They could take them out in a commando raid or something, since hitting the EFs on the ground would be the easiest way. Otherwise the Argentines are very reliant on tanker aircraft to even reach the Falkands, and their aircraft that do have decent range like the A-4 are terrible dogfighters. If Argentina had agreed to purchasing 36 F-16As a decade ago, when the US offered them, their odds would not be quite as bad.

[NGTM-1R]

The A-4 is not a terrible dogfighter. (No really, it's not, there's a reason they were used for aggressor training.) It's simply that this is one of the few cases where going BVR could be put into practice easily and without risk. You have a limited number of very capable aircraft facing a large group of much less capable aircraft. You don't want to mix it up with them, they'll drag you down and clobber you with bodies.