Falklands War part 2?

[pcgeek11]

I think it is smart. So far, the Argentinian leaders seem to be very politically savvy. They are making the Malvinas too expensive and risky for the UK to occupy.

Keep saying it and maybe it become true... lol

 

[Infohawk]

They are making the Malvinas too expensive and risky for the UK to occupy.

Evidence?

 

[CanOWorms]

It seems that the suspected UK deployment of a nuclear submarine to the South Atlantic is contrary to the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean). Both the UK and Argentina are signatories.

Argentina Says Britain Is Raising Tensions

Argentina lashed out at Britain on Friday in an increasingly tense territorial dispute over the Falkland Islands, accusing Britain of deploying a nuclear-armed submarine to the South Atlantic and threatening the region’s stability.

Argentina’s foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, said at the United Nations that the deployment would violate the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, and to which both Britain and Argentina are signatories.

 

[CanOWorms]

Evidence?

I've posted many articles throughout this thread on this topic. For example, see post #220 for an article where the British suspect that the Argentinians are utilizing this strategy. Also see the other article I posted regarding the UK's relationship with South America deteriorating, including countries preventing visits from British warships.

It seems that Argentina is making the UK make a choice: stay in the past and occupy, or enter bilateral talks on sovereignty and be welcome in South America. South America is coming together, and if they stay together on the Malvinas issue, the UK is going to face big pressures.

 

[Infohawk]

It seems that if the air link to the Malvinas is cut, the Argentinians may be attempting to make the Malvinas simply too expensive for the British to maintain considering the general decrepit and crumbling state of the UK state.

Argentina accused of plotting Falklands blockade

Be careful with your tenses. Here you said they "ARE" making it too expensive, which you have no evidence of. Earlier you said they're trying, which may be true.

 

[CanOWorms]

Be careful with your tenses. Here you said they "ARE" making it too expensive, which you have no evidence of. Earlier you said they're trying, which may be true.

They ARE making it too expensive as well.

 

[Infohawk]

They ARE making it too expensive as well.

What is your evidence that they ARE making it too expensive? And not just that they are making it MORE expensive, but TOO expensive?

 

[MotF Bane]

It seems that the suspected UK deployment of a nuclear submarine to the South Atlantic is contrary to the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean). Both the UK and Argentina are signatories.

Argentina Says Britain Is Raising Tensions

Only violates the treaty if Argentina can prove the submarine is armed with nuclear weapons. Nuclear power alone does not constitute a nuclear weapon.

 

[Infohawk]

Only violates the treaty if Argentina can prove the submarine is armed with nuclear weapons. Nuclear power alone does not constitute a nuclear weapon.

Yeah I really doubt Argentina can prove that. And I'm really doubting they have the spy or satellite network that could reliably place a SLBM on a sub.

 

[CanOWorms]

What is your evidence that they ARE making it too expensive? And not just that they are making it MORE expensive, but TOO expensive?

The state of UK relations with Latin American countries, effect on the US relationship, costs associated with further militarization while the UK is suffering a severe financial crisis, etc. All the things I've been posting about throughout this thread.

It seems that you think "too expensive" means "not possible." However, people purchase things that are too expensive for them all the time. See the housing crisis for examples.

 

[CanOWorms]

Only violates the treaty if Argentina can prove the submarine is armed with nuclear weapons. Nuclear power alone does not constitute a nuclear weapon.

The articles I've been reading state that it's nuclear-armed.

The UK should disclose the location of all nuclear-armed submarines. International observers (not Argentinian) should be given full access to UK resources that track or maintain their nuclear submarine fleet to verify that they are in compliance during this crisis.

 

[Infohawk]

The state of UK relations with Latin American countries, effect on the US relationship, costs associated with further militarization while the UK is suffering a severe financial crisis, etc. All the things I've been posting about throughout this thread.

It seems that you think "too expensive" means "not possible." However, people purchase things that are too expensive for them all the time. See the housing crisis for examples.

What would it take for someone to prove to you that it's not "too" expensive?

 

[CanOWorms]

What would it take for someone to prove to you that it's not "too" expensive?

I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on the quality and comprehensiveness of any report they provide.

 

[Atheus]

Those islands were apparently uninhabited when settled by British settlers in the 1850's. Argentina claim otherwise.

Either way the current inhabitants all want to remain British.

This is the only legitimate reason for the British to maintain control of the islands. Speaking as a Brit by the way - the 'we found it first' argument is bullshit. If a bunch of Argentinians move there (and why not if it's so great you'd send men to die for it), over time start to outnumber the British/Falkland islanders, then they could have a vote vote and declare independence. Simple. Britain would not have a problem with that I'm sure.

They have a few of them at least and they have a pretty decent submarine fleet. Like I said they will have two new Carriers by about 2020. Much improved over their old ones.

But in the meantime they seriously lack the ability to project naval power.

The Malvinas are not in the middle of nowhere. They're not even 300 miles away from Argentina.

The UK could barely even project force in Libya, they would probably have a much more difficult time with the Malvinas now than they did in the 80s. I'm not sure if Argentina would be able to take back their territory as of yet, but it will probably be inevitable.

Okay, it's true we're decomissioning the carriers, and it weakens us significantly - completely stupid move in my opinion. Why not at least keep them operational until the cool new ones come online? Or speed up production or something? We've got hangers full of VTOL jets sitting there doing nothing. And F35s to replace them any time we want them as several people mentioned.

Rabid/Worms/Wanker... it disgusts me to reply to one of your posts... but I would like to point out we did manage to project force into Libya at fairly short notice. British jets hit targets pointed out by British special forces working with the rebels. This was a just war if such a thing exists.

@RabidMongoose

You're an idiot. A complete waste of space, and someone should visit violence on you in an attempt to either fix you, or prevent you from spewing nonsense like this into this Royal forum. Like, if Prince Harry broke every one of your fingers with a ball-peen hammer while God Save the Queen blared from loudspeakers, I think that would be uh, smashing.

😀

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm not sure there's much evidence of which natives went there. Their interests would be superseded by the fact that they had departed and the fact that British people are currently living there.

I don't see how native interests would be superseded by the interests that originate from violent aggression.

Moreover, as I've already stated, the Malvinas could be transferred to a south american native body that can then deal with it as they desire.

Clearly, their sovereignty and discovery rights are not part of that. Argentina crapped on those rights and doesn't get to benefit of them.

Clearly they are now a part of Argentina. Thus, they may pursue their rights through Argentina.

Your reasoning is circular. The only reason it's not an issue between two nations is the US completely took over America. Are you saying that if the UK invaded all of Argentina there would be no territorial dispute? The point is that it's all hand-waving. In the case of the US, you hand-wave away colonial crimes. In the case of the UK, you cry about an island that only has British residents.

Your reasoning is illogical and also hypocritical.

Again: the issue with Argentina invading a UK island and establishing a colony is still relevant. It could just be hand waved away after 100-200 years. If you want to hand wave away everything, then you condone violent aggression.

Wow you're making geographical proximity and continental shelf contiguity two separate categories? No if you take away native first discovery you only have geographical proximity, which doesn't explain most of the borders in this world.

Of course they are.

So, basically, if you take away almost everything from Argentina, then it still has more than the UK. That really just shows how horrible your position is.

Essentially, your position comes down to: Do whatever you want, then just cry and hand wave everything away and then say 'no more hand waving because I say so.'

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on the quality and comprehensiveness of any report they provide.

Do you think it's reasonable that all it takes is a couple articles (that don't say it's TOO expensive) and a simple proclamation from yourself for you to believe that a minor projection of force for one of the world's strongest navies is TOO expensive. But for someone to prove you wrong they'd have to have some high-quality and comprehensive report?

As Atheus just said, the UK just projected its force in North Africa and it's still a developed country.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This is the only legitimate reason for the British to maintain control of the islands. Speaking as a Brit by the way - the 'we found it first' argument is bullshit. If a bunch of Argentinians move there (and why not if it's so great you'd send men to die for it), over time start to outnumber the British/Falkland islanders, then they could have a vote vote and declare independence. Simple. Britain would not have a problem with that I'm sure.

Perhaps the UK should allow unlimited immigration to the Malvinas by Argentinians if desired then.

Rabid/Worms/Wanker... it disgusts me to reply to one of your posts... but I would like to point out we did manage to project force into Libya at fairly short notice. British jets hit targets pointed out by British special forces working with the rebels. This was a just war if such a thing exists.

I don't think that the UK projected much force at all, especially without the unique capabilities of the US. However, I don't think that the UK cannot project any force at all. It just couldn't project much force in Libya, and would not be able to project much more in the Malvinas. Maybe this will change once the carriers come online, but right now the UK is pretty much neutered.

Anyways, please feel free to discuss this issue, I find it very interesting, but please refrain from personal attacks.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't see how native interests would be superseded by the interests that originate from violent aggression.

Moreover, as I've already stated, the Malvinas could be transferred to a south american native body that can then deal with it as they desire.

What interests? The indigenous people left. It's not as if they are actually making claims. You're just using them for your bizarro theories. The reality is they are not making any claims on the Falklands, which makes sense since they left long ago. Even Argentina doesn't rely on your native exploration ideas.

And that's great if you think it could be transferred to an indigenous body, that doesn't change the fact that Argentina has no legitimate claim.

Your reasoning is illogical and also hypocritical.

How is it hypocritical?

Again: the issue with Argentina invading a UK island and establishing a colony is still relevant. It could just be hand waved away after 100-200 years. If you want to hand wave away everything, then you condone violent aggression.

Did you get your countries mixed up? I agree it would be wrong for Argentina to invade the UK island at this point.

Of course they are.

Why don't you just multiply the number of grounds you think Argentina has. You can say they have a claim based on distance in kilometers, distance in miles, distance in leagues, etc. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Essentially, your position comes down to: Do whatever you want, then just cry and hand wave everything away and then say 'no more hand waving because I say so.'

No, it really doesn't. It comes down to possession (a common doctrine in civil law) and the wishes of the inhabitants and the lack of ANY legitimate competing claims.

 

[CanOWorms]

Do you think it's reasonable that all it takes is a couple articles (that don't say it's TOO expensive) and a simple proclamation from yourself for you to believe that a minor projection of force for one of the world's strongest navies is TOO expensive. But for someone to prove you wrong they'd have to have some high-quality and comprehensive report?

Please feel free to provide anything otherwise.

As Atheus just said, the UK just projected its force in North Africa and it's still a developed country.

The US shouldered much of the burden. Libya is also in Europe's backyard. The Malvinas are thousands of miles away from the UK.

It wasn't a simple operation back in 1982, and the UK navy has deteriorated quite a bit since then.

It's the bitter truth: We couldn't send a task force to the Falklands today

I was joining a task force that would eventually number 111 ships. Today - after spending cuts that have seen defence budgets slashed from 5 to 2.5 per cent of GDP - the once formidable Royal Navy now numbers barely 40 major ships and submarines.

...

If the Royal Naval fleet has shrunk spectacularly since 1982 - it had 55 frigates and destroyers then; today it has 24 - then the British merchant fleet has all but disappeared. Who knows where we'd get the ships to support a war in the South Atlantic from now.

...

In 1982, we had 17 destroyers and sent eight to the Falklands. Now we have only seven - and many of them are engaged in policing waters elsewhere.

Regardless, I doubt it's going to war in the immediate future. However, the UK really should come up with a plan on how to dismantle their various colonies.

 

[Infohawk]

Please feel free to provide anything otherwise.

I'm not the one making the claim. Have you ever heard of the concept of falsifiability? If your factual belief can't be proven wrong it's pretty much hogwash.

 

[RabidMongoose]

What interests? The indigenous people left. It's not as if they are actually making claims. You're just using them for your bizarro theories. The reality is they are not making any claims on the Falklands, which makes sense since they left long ago. Even Argentina doesn't rely on your native exploration ideas.

What are you talking about? There are indigenous people still in South America and even in Argentina. And Argentina, which has many of these descendants, is making a claim and has been making a claim for quite a while.

And that's great if you think it could be transferred to an indigenous body, that doesn't change the fact that Argentina has no legitimate claim.

Can you provide a source for the fact that Argentina has no legitimate claim? Or is this you being arrogant and stating your opinion as a fact? Please provide evidence.

How is it hypocritical?

You are allowing the UK to benefit from its violent aggression, but are precluding any future violent aggression from obtaining the same rights as the UK. This is hypocritical and illogical.

Did you get your countries mixed up? I agree it would be wrong for Argentina to invade the UK island at this point.

That's hypocritical. And I didn't get the countries mixed up at all.

You support UK rights that stem from violent aggression and takeover. However, now you are being a hypocrite and saying if someone does the same, then it's no longer valid. How convenient and hypocritical.

Why don't you just multiply the number of grounds you think Argentina has. You can say they have a claim based on distance in kilometers, distance in miles, distance in leagues, etc. Does that sound reasonable to you?

Those were two separate and distinct issues. I am not sure why you don't know simple definitions.

No, it really doesn't. It comes down to possession (a common doctrine in civil law) and the wishes of the inhabitants and the lack of ANY legitimate competing claims.

Yes it does.

And Argentina does have a legitimate competing claim.

Your entire argument comes down to this:
1. UK can do anything.
2. If Argentina does the same, then it doesn't matter because they're not the UK.
3. Anything that I disagree with his illegitimate.

Sorry, but that is hypocritical.

You want to reward UK aggression, but when faced with a similar circumstance where the UK is the victim, you then pretend that the rule you apply to the benefit of the UK is not applicable to anyone else.

To be frank, I have not seen someone be this hypocritical in quite some time.

 

[dennilfloss]

It seems that the suspected UK deployment of a nuclear submarine to the South Atlantic is contrary to the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean). Both the UK and Argentina are signatories.

Argentina Says Britain Is Raising Tensions

The Falklands may be part of South America but they are definitely not part of Latin America.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...The UK should disclose the location of all nuclear-armed submarines...

Downing Street might disagree on the necessity of disclosing State Secrets and violating military security protocols just to ease your mind as to whether Argentina is apt to suffer serious consequences from renewed aggression against the Falklands.

 

[CallMeJoe]

...To be frank, I have not seen someone be this hypocritical in quite some time.

Does your home lack mirrors?

 

[MotF Bane]

The articles I've been reading state that it's nuclear-armed.

The UK should disclose the location of all nuclear-armed submarines. International observers (not Argentinian) should be given full access to UK resources that track or maintain their nuclear submarine fleet to verify that they are in compliance during this crisis.

Articles can state whatever they wish. A treaty violation would require proof, and there is no proof forthcoming, short of the British government coming out and announcing it, or nuking something, neither of which they will be doing.

Absolutely not. That undermines the entire purpose of a submarine fleet. Their locations and abilities are to remain as secretive as possible, it is their fundamental advantage. Your suggestion is absurd.