PDA

View Full Version : Will the UK lose the Falklands?



Bill Moore
02-12-2012, 06:21 PM
Provided a series of posts on the current political rift with between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands. It appears that the UK has few friends in Latin America, and if this escalates to a conflict may in fact find themselves facing a coalition of Latin American nations, which will put the U.S. in an ackward position to say the least. One would hope the diplomats will work this out, but the rapid escalation of tensions may have put both nations in a position where compromise is politically infeasible.

http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/1484/war-unlikely-in-falklands-but-uk-could-lose-regional-access

War 'unlikely' in Falklands, but UK could lose regional access


The Falklands have been at the centre of a territorial dispute between Argentina and Britain that dates back to the 19th century. Nevertheless, the feud has been reinvigorated following recent UK oil exploration. In particular, the announcement last month by UK-based company Rockhopper Exploration that it may have discovered significant oil reserves in the North Falklands Basin have heightened tensions and highlighted the potential geopolitical risks involved in the search for fossil fuels. This comes after Rockhopper unveiled plans last year for a $2bn project to transform the islands into a major oil production hub. An announcement, which sparked further accusations from Argentinian officials that Britain has taken Argentine resources from the Islands and the waters surrounding them.


While it is highly unlikely that the current dispute will lead to armed conflict, Argentina's continued ability to mobilise regional sympathy over the Falklands debate may result in the UK being further denied a level of access within the region that it once took for granted. This may include constraining Britain's ability to promote British business in the region, or denying military ships access to key Latin American ports - as happened in September 2010. Then, the Uruguayan authorities prevented HMS Gloucester from docking in Montevideo and, in January 2011, when Brazil refused permission for HMS Clyde to dock in Rio de Janeiro. Argentina could also seek to end the last commercial aviation link between the Falklands and Chile. As Argentina strengthens its relations throughout Latin America and as the region continues to support current integration efforts - the UK could, therefore, find itself becoming increasingly isolated as tensions over the dispute continue to escalate. Perhaps, the biggest game-changer in this debate rests then with the answer to the following question: just how far are other Latin American countries prepared to go to support Argentina's territorial claims to the Falklands?

Bill Moore
02-12-2012, 06:29 PM
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/02/2012210104927175500.html

What underlies the Falklands dispute?


"There are three elements that are very sensitive. First is the anniversary of the war, then we have the increment of the military British presence in the disputed area and finally the thorny issue of oil exploitation by the British in a unilateral manner which is not compatible with the UN resolution."

- Fernando Petrella, a former Argentinian envoy to the UN

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9063065/Hugo-Chavez-says-Venezuelan-troops-would-fight-with-Argentina-over-Falklands.html


Hugo Chavez says Venezuelan troops would fight with Argentina over Falklands

Hugo Chavez has pledged that Venezuelan armed forces would fight alongside Argentina against Britain in any future conflict over the Falkland Islands at a regional meeting this weekend.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9067619/Argentine-president-Cristina-Kirchner-hosting-Falklands-ceremony.html


Argentine president Cristina Kirchner hosting Falklands ceremony

Argentine President Cristina Kirchner invited Falklands War veterans and opposition leaders to a ceremony on Tuesday amid renewed tensions with London ahead of the 30-year anniversary of a conflict over the archipelago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9068701/Castro-mocks-UK-Falklands-claim-as-Argentina-accuses-Britain-of-militarisation.html


Mr Castro, the 85-year-old said, who gave a ranting two-hour broadcast to launch his memoirs this week, made fun of the Royal Navy in his speech:
Somewhere is the English ship sailing to the Falklands but the English only have one little boat left...The only ones who have aircraft carriers are the Yankees. All the English can do is send over a destroyer, they can't even send an aircraft carrier.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9075189/UK-and-Argentina-must-stop-escalating-conflict-over-Falklands-says-Ban-Ki-moon.html


UK and Argentina must stop 'escalating' conflict over Falklands, says Ban Ki-moon

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9076138/UK-accused-of-deploying-nuclear-weapons-near-the-Falklands.html


UK accused of deploying nuclear weapons near the Falklands

In an increasingly tense war of words, Argentinian Foreign Minister Hector Timberman claims the UK is deploying nuclear weapons near the Falkland Islands

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/9076530/Falklands-oilfields-could-yield-176bn-tax-windfall.html


Falklands oilfields could yield $176bn tax windfall

The Falkland Islands stand to benefit from an enormous $176bn (£111.7bn) tax windfall from oil and gas exploration, according to a major new report.

carl
02-12-2012, 07:36 PM
Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro should be more more aware of the capabilities of nuclear submarines. Or at least Mr. Chavez. I suspect Mr. Castro already knows and is having his bit of fun.

Rex Brynen
02-13-2012, 01:08 AM
It is probably worth remembering that the Argentines have taken even deeper defence cuts than the UK (they spend about 0.9% of GNP on defence, one of the lowest in Latin America), and have undergone virtually no modernization (and no replacements) since 1982.

This is all largely political bluster, in my humble opinion.

Bill Moore
02-13-2012, 03:42 AM
This is all largely political bluster, in my humble opinion.

Perhaps and hopefully so, but bluster can sometimes lead to dumb actions that escalate rapidly. The main point of my posts was will the UK lose the Falklands, and losing the Falklands is not limited to war. If they face enough pressure from the UN and Latin American nations circle the wagons to support Argentina will they have enough political and economic clout to convince the UK to leave or at least modify their position? The UK left Hong Kong without a fight.

Posted by Carl,


Mr. Chavez and Mr. Castro should be more more aware of the capabilities of nuclear submarines. Or at least Mr. Chavez. I suspect Mr. Castro already knows and is having his bit of fun.

What useful capabilities would those be for mitigating this potential conflict? Safe bet the UK won't use nukes to maintain a territory, but I guess they can sink a few Argentinian Naval vessels if the need arised, still not convinced it is much of deterrent against Argentina's strategy.

carl
02-13-2012, 04:18 AM
Bill:

The Argentine Navy most likely has zero capability to hunt down and destroy a Royal Navy nuke attack boat. Those boats can kill what surface ships they will as they please. The Argentines could not supply a force on the Falklands but by air. I don't know if they have the capability to do that but even if they do it would be very expensive. That is the first thing.

If the British chose to view any military attempt on the Falklands as an old fashioned act of war, they might then blockade or quarantine, or whatever the legal term is, Argentina. They would have the physical capability to shut down seaborne trade to Argentina. They wouldn't even have to sink anything, just announce that they would and no commercial ship would chance it. I don't know the legalities but they could do as they pleased to Argentine maritime trade and there is nothing that could stop them.

Lastly some of those attack boats carry Tomahawks and they could shoot up various targets in Argentina where and when they chose.

As long as the Royal Navy has those subs, and the Argentine Navy has no way to sink them, the British control Argentina's access to the ocean. Whether Great Britain would play that hard, I don't know, but they have the capability if they want to use it.

The British did leave Hong Kong. But there they were up against China on the other side of the world, not Argentina in the South Atlantic.

Red Rat
02-13-2012, 09:00 AM
One of the best tours I ever did was in the Falklands. Beautiful place and professionally a great place to learn 'Jointery'.

I would agree with Rex Brynen that Argentina has very limited military means to take and then hold the Falklands. I would assess that the Falklands are vulnerable to a coup de main type operation, but thereafter it is difficult to see how things would progress. The UK has all but neutered it's amphibious capability, whereas with the current UK capability in the South Atlantic (even with or without the presence of SSNs) the Argentinians would find it very difficult to reinforce and resupply any garrison.

Currently Kirchner appears to be whipping up the hysteria for domestic political reasons, not least to distract attention from the dire state of the economy (as an aside it is interesting to note that the Kirchners were not very rich before they went into politics, but are exceedingly rich now :rolleyes:). The issue will undoubtedly boil down to oil and gas.

If commercially exploitable reserves of oil and gas are found within the Falklands Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) then this may make a war worth fighting for from an Argentianian perspective, especially if the effort becomes pan-South American. A 'good war' by a popular alliance of South American nations against what is widely perceived as a colonial power with the prospect of a share of significant oil and gas revenues at the end would be an attractive proposition. The UK has limited clout in South America, in trading, financial and military terms she is now a middle weight power. Any pan-South American consensus on the Falklands issue would be difficult for the UK to counter and would place the US in an awkward position.

I cannot help but think however that the Argentinians are going about this the wrong way. If they encouraged trade and cultural ties with the Falklands they are more likely to bring the Falklands Islanders on to a negotiating stance in a generation or two. As it is since the 1982 invasion the Falkland Islanders have become culturally much closer with the UK and more distinct from South America.

Jim Rodgers
02-13-2012, 09:03 AM
Major caveat to the following "analysis"/guesswork - I am absolutely NOT a LatAm expert, don't speak Spanish (I'm conversant in British), and have never even been south of Mexico/Caribbean.

Argentina has long claimed/pursued the Falklands, both pre and post '82. The possibility of oil makes it somewhat more interesting, but the occasional noise from the Argentinians about this isn't really new.

In 2010 the US changed policy (sort-of) re the Falklands (territory of our closest ally) -

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100043042/hillary-clinton-slaps-britain-in-the-face-again-over-the-falklands/

That was the Daily Telegraph, but even the Economist was torqued -

http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2010/03/falklands

We (the US) were "rewarded", within just a few months of providing what must have been a significant diplomatic coup for the Argentinians, with this -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704409004576146690013965286.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

Foreign Minister Timerman was reported to have provided on site supervision.

Though they eventually, and unsurprisingly, sort of backed down -

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/06/16/under-pressure-argentina-returns-seized-cargo-from-us-military-plane

Foreign Minister Timerman is still around -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9075975/Argentina-accuses-Britain-of-sending-nuclear-missiles-to-Falklands.html

All of that adds up to, right or wrong, that this is just how the Argentinian govt, at least this one, does business. Plan accordingly.

This will probably calm down at some point (though the president was reelected in 2011, so it's, presumably, not that). As Bill Moore notes, there's always the chance of an accident/miscalculation, so increased tension is unfortunate from that standpoint, but the fact the Falkland Islands are, well, islands (more than a couple of hundred miles offshore, at that), should help mitigate that. And the military balance isn't in question. As others have noted, one SSN, if you're willing to use it, turns it into game over. The AAW destroyer is helpful as well.

Ultimately, whatever the public rhetoric, I doubt a regional power like Brazil or anyone else that matters really wants significant drama over this. Additionally, I suspect there are a lot of ways to quietly twist arms with a country like Argentina, with an economy that's still shaky in some ways since the default of a few years ago. Finally, the UK has horses to trade in the first world, with the EU in flux and lots of other stuff going on.

Jim Rodgers
02-13-2012, 09:09 AM
I cannot help but think however that the Argentinians are going about this the wrong way. If they encouraged trade and cultural ties with the Falklands they are more likely to bring the Falklands Islanders on to a negotiating stance in a generation or two. As it is since the 1982 invasion the Falkland Islanders have become culturally much closer with the UK and more distinct from South America.

Strongly agree - make yourself into a place that the Falklanders wouldn't mind being a part of or associated with. Down the road, if the UK citizens living in the Falklands wanted to shift from the UK to Argentina, I suspect that London would oblige them. Oil or not, Whitehall probably doesn't love having to deal with this issue. But they're being forced to stick up for their citizens and, quite rightly, doing so.

davidbfpo
02-13-2012, 11:56 AM
There are many points that can be made over this diplomatic tussle. So not in order of priority.

What is puzzling is that it appears the UK made no preparations for the anniversary of the 1982 Falklands War and any upsurge in Argentinian action or rhetoric. A 'routine' six week tour of duty by Prince William, on SAR duties, is at least questionable, if not provocative and probably only appreciated by the Falkland Islanders.

The BBC reported more concern over the lack of food supplies, which appears to be due to Argentinian diplomacy curtailing trade links:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16980747

In 1982 Argentina was able to conduct Hercules flights to the Falklands even after hostilities had started.

Secondly a German-made submarine caused the RN a "headache" as it was never located and was known to be on patrol. They now have three such modern submarines. The UK had several SSNs then deployed.

Like others I hope Argentina has excluded using her limited, high risk military options.

Her diplomacy before this tussle was successful in restricting trade with the Falklands, even Chile was wavering (traditionally not on good terms with Argentina). Cutting off Falkland Islanders links with Argentina is and was a mistake, such as oil supplies, medical, fruit & veg etc.

The discovery of oil & gas is a hardy perennial, announcements made and little happens. I expect exploitation costs are prohibitive, IIRC due to being in deep water and so far from any friendly industrial support.

There's also a personal factor. I doubt that any UK politician will change the existing policy until Mrs Thatcher is buried, her "handbag" lives on!

So, returning to the question: Will the UK lose the Falklands?

No. The overall price was high - after 1982 - and is now small. Military reinforcement can be done easily and with a SSN hidden from sight.

Fuchs
02-13-2012, 12:04 PM
The Falklands scare is being used for budget reasons; the RN faces budget challenges, and fights for its carrier and naval aviation which are in peril not the least because of F-35 delays and general cost inefficiency.

davidbfpo
02-13-2012, 12:16 PM
Fuchs:
..the RN faces budget challenges, and fights for its carrier and naval aviation which are in peril..

Yes, the RN faces budget challenges. The RN currently has no carriers, two are being built, there are no aircraft envisaged as being in place to fly from them and currently has only helicopters (many in Afg.), with no fixed wing combat aircraft.

Given the investment in the airbase on the Falklands, with SAMs, hardened aircraft shelters and air defence radar - it is the RAF to the fore. Reinforcing the RAF presence, with fighters, AWACS etc maybe a nuisance to them, but can be done.

Fuchs
02-13-2012, 02:47 PM
david, I meant this in a bigger context.

It's a boogeyman. The largely irrelevant Falklands and their mythical 30-years old "we will soon produce oil there, but don't yet" symptom are being used to keep the militaryspending up.

It's a ridiculous Warsaw Pact surrogate now that the Arabs aren't the boogeyman of the day any more.


I have no respect for people who fall for such primitive scaremongering.

TDB
02-15-2012, 08:29 PM
It does seem good timing as far as the RN are concerned, they've been hit hardest by SDSR. I can't see this rumbling on long enough for spending to be upped or the speed with which the two new carriers are finished.

I can't see it coming to a military conflict though, not in this day and age. If it did reckon we'd see Article 5 being invoked? We can but hope.

Fuchs
02-15-2012, 08:36 PM
It does seem good timing as far as the RN are concerned, they've been hit hardest by SDSR. I can't see this rumbling on long enough for spending to be upped or the speed with which the two new carriers are finished.

I can't see it coming to a military conflict though, not in this day and age. If it did reckon we'd see Article 5 being invoked? We can but hope.

Article 5 does not cover that place of Earth. It's about Europe and NA.

The Lisbon treaty might apply, though; that depends on definitions (see comments here (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/03/germanys-alliances-ii.html)).

J Wolfsberger
02-15-2012, 09:43 PM
It's a boogeyman. The largely irrelevant Falklands and their mythical 30-years old "we will soon produce oil there, but don't yet" symptom are being used to keep the militaryspending up.

It's a ridiculous Warsaw Pact surrogate now that the Arabs aren't the boogeyman of the day any more.


I have no respect for people who fall for such primitive scaremongering.

In that case, you have to admit this is quite an accomplishment for British diplomats, getting Kirchner to blow this up so their colleagues in the military could press for budget increases. :D

Actually, I think Red Rat has it mostly right. Kirchner has manufactured a crisis partly because the domestic situation in Argentina is almost Grecian. But I also think her government's major purpose is using this as a lever to pry some concessions out of the UK regarding exploitation of the oil.

Regardless, as a Bolivaran in good standing she was guaranteed the diplomatic support of Columbia, Brazil and Cuba. I doubt they'd back her to the point of armed conflict.

ganulv
02-16-2012, 04:51 AM
Regardless, as a Bolivaran in good standing she was guaranteed the diplomatic support of Columbia, Brazil and Cuba. I doubt they'd back her to the point of armed conflict.
Since the Columbian government is tied up dealing with a decades–long insurgency and the Cuban government is tied up dealing with a neighbor whose stated policy is regime change and who also happens to be the most powerful nation in the history of the world I think we can be pretty sure that those two aren’t going to go to blows for Argentina. And I believe that the Brazilians would rather not have their carrier destroyed by the Brits. But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn (http://gawker.com/5885549/sean-penn-has-opinions-prince-william-is-a-pirate).

carl
02-16-2012, 07:09 AM
ganulv:

That was an almost perfectly constructed paragraph and I laughed like hell at the end.

davidbfpo
02-16-2012, 11:14 AM
Ganulv:
But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn.

Ah, we still have 'The Handbag' in reserve and SSN(s).

J Wolfsberger
02-16-2012, 12:24 PM
Since the Columbian government is tied up dealing with a decades–long insurgency and the Cuban government is tied up dealing with a neighbor whose stated policy is regime change and who also happens to be the most powerful nation in the history of the world I think we can be pretty sure that those two aren’t going to go to blows for Argentina. And I believe that the Brazilians would rather not have their carrier destroyed by the Brits. But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn (http://gawker.com/5885549/sean-penn-has-opinions-prince-william-is-a-pirate).

I got a laugh as well.

Unfortunately, I suffered a brain f--- when I wrote the post. I meant "Venezuela, Brazil and Cuba."

Next thing you know, I'll start to get crotchety. :(

Stan
02-16-2012, 03:09 PM
But you know who Kirchner can count on? Sean Penn (http://gawker.com/5885549/sean-penn-has-opinions-prince-william-is-a-pirate).

Matt, That's a keeper :D


I got a laugh as well.
Unfortunately, I suffered a brain f--- when I wrote the post. I meant "Venezuela, Brazil and Cuba."

Hey John, You old buzzard - we hate all of those dudes (well, at least until we get another president with another agenda).

Where have you been anyway ? On some sort of sabbatical :eek:


Next thing you know, I'll start to get crotchety. :(

As I needed to check the definition of that word, I ran across far too many definitions at the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crotchety) and decided on the following :D


1. Of or pertaining to the crotchular region.

2. Of a sexually promiscuous nature.

1. Ray-Ray was experiencing a crotchety itch, so he jiggied on down to the clinic on the corner.

This, BTW, has jack to do with this thread !

J Wolfsberger
02-16-2012, 04:05 PM
Matt, That's a keeper :D



Hey John, You old buzzard - we hate all of those dudes (well, at least until we get another president with another agenda).

Where have you been anyway ? On some sort of sabbatical :eek:



As I needed to check the definition of that word, I ran across far too many definitions at the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=crotchety) and decided on the following :D



This, BTW, has jack to do with this thread !

I got tied up in a series of other activities.

As for "crotchety," more along the lines of:

1.irritable: irritable and difficult to please

The proper emoticon is: :mad:

Stan
02-16-2012, 07:50 PM
I got tied up in a series of other activities.

As for "crotchety," more along the lines of:

1.irritable: irritable and difficult to please

The proper emoticon is: :mad:

Sorry about that John :o
Glad to have you back and pissed off !

Steve Blair
02-16-2012, 11:08 PM
Maybe we can just send them Sean Penn and call it good. Please?

J Wolfsberger
02-17-2012, 02:42 AM
Maybe we can just send them Sean Penn and call it good. Please?

That gets my vote. :D

JMA
03-18-2012, 01:51 PM
Falkland Islands: Britain 'would lose' if Argentina decides to invade now (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/9150339/Falkland-Islands-Britain-would-lose-if-Argentina-decides-to-invade-now.html)


Idyllic though his retirement seems, Woodward insists his views are relevant. “I have stayed very much in touch with what’s going on. I don’t hesitate to tell the First Sea Lord if I think he’s getting it wrong, and he, bless him, actually does take some notice. I am, after all, the only senior naval officer still alive who has taken the Navy to war. That doesn’t mean to say I’m right, but I’m probably worth listening to. Albeit with a pained expression.”

'One Hundred Days’ by Admiral Sandy Woodward (HarperPress) is available from Telegraph Books for £8.99 plus £1.25 p&p. Call 0844 871 1516 or go to books.telegraph.co.uk

The Brits don't make them like this anymore... to their cost!

Dayuhan
03-19-2012, 01:34 AM
to their cost!

What would the cost to Britain be if the Falklands were lost?

ganulv
03-19-2012, 01:44 AM
what would the cost to britain be if the falklands were lost?
:d

JMA
03-19-2012, 05:30 AM
What would the cost to Britain be if the Falklands were lost?

I don't know and quite frankly I don't care.

My post was about the person and not the place.

davidbfpo
03-19-2012, 11:18 AM
A short article:
Major General Jonathan Shaw CBE is Colonel Commandant of The Parachute Regiment and the Assistant Chief of the Defence Staff. Earlier this year, he returned for the first time in three decades to the Falklands with his wife Gillie and children Tom, 14, Ella, 10, to tell them the story of a battle he’ll never forget.

A few grim passages, that is the reality of combat:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9150341/Falklands-Remembered-return-to-Mount-Longdon.html

Tukhachevskii
03-19-2012, 11:19 AM
The Falklands: The Security Equation in 2012 (http://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=commentary&ref=C4F6324444BE2E)

davidbfpo
04-05-2012, 11:16 AM
The UK media has had it's fill of anniversary articles and several documentaries, the best IMO by Max Hastings (who had "yomped" across the Falklands in 1982):http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01fkc3v/The_Falklands_Legacy_with_Max_Hastings/

Listening to a radio discussion, with only British voices, it was made clear that Argentina has neither the will or capability to launch another invasion (with no new spending on ships & planes since 1982); the diplomatic offensive started last year when Argentina's economy caught a cold - so is a political distraction and provided the UK has adequate warning within days air reinforcement could land at the airbase.

So it was interesting to see how the Falklands War looked from an Australian perspective, thanks to the Lowy Institute: 'What the Falklands War means for Asia':http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/04/03/What-the-Falklands-War-means-for-Asia.aspx and 'Australian lessons from the Falklands War':http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2012/04/05/Australian-lessons-from-the-Falklands.aspx

The later author is a retired Australian Army general and I was struck by this concluding remark, which has far wider application:
The Falklands War has great value as an object of study for Australians, not just for its military content based on the technology of the day, nor for its obvious tragedy and successes, but as a study in unpreparedness, unpredictability, the impact of national leadership, and the need to align strategies to capability. And that is only from the British side. There are even more lessons for our part of the world if you study the Argentinians.

JMA
05-20-2012, 11:57 AM
Falklands War memorial unveiled at National Arboretum (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18135404)

A service is being held to dedicate a new memorial to the 255 Britons who died in the Falklands War.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/60359000/jpg/_60359046_jex_1411178_de27-1.jpg

The memorial was commissioned by British veterans' organisation, the South Atlantic Medal Association 1982

ganulv
05-20-2012, 01:20 PM
A service is being held to dedicate a new memorial to the 255 Britons who died in the Falklands War.

This thread prompted me to recall the television coverage of the aftermath of one of the successful Argentine attacks upon a Royal Navy vessel -- probably the HMS Sheffield, but I am not certain -- at the time. As best I can remember it generated a strong mix of confusion, curiosity, and concern for me at the time. I guess that is to be expected given that I was a six-year-old who had witnessed precious little non-fictional violence and none that I can recall (non-fictional or otherwise) on TV. Was the coverage of the aftermath of the attack upon the Sheffield (or of any other British ships) notable in Britain or Argentina?

Bullmoose Bailey
05-20-2012, 01:42 PM
Article 5 does not cover that place of Earth. It's about Europe and NA.

The Lisbon treaty might apply, though; that depends on definitions (see comments here (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/03/germanys-alliances-ii.html)).

n.b. Article 5 was invoked for Afghanistan. Ref: above discussion.

In an "Empire Strikes Back" turnabout The Commonwealth sits not only on the vast oil reserves discussed but the geostrategic key terrain of lands & seas dominating both the Drake Passage & The Northwest Passage, yes that long sought secret high speed route to Asia, its only existed since 2007 to regular shipping, unintended consequence of "global warming".

Although their ability to project Air-Sea dominance is presently minimal, for a moment which will not last, The UK remains capable of projecting power vis-a-vis amphibious forces. They also have access to Airfields in Canada, New Zealand & elsewhere, in support and old island "coaling" ports in between. Most importantly they have one of the best levels of access to Troopship Service which is an economic and more reliable, if slower, way of moving an Army than airpower and doesn't require an airhead but a beachhead, with tenders or landing crafts. As such the Argentines should do well to fear the BA as well as the RN. So this small war question isn't merely a littoral issue.

It could also be argued that they, The British, presently control a degree of access to the Panama canal via the B.W.I. Overall the Atlantic is still the domain of the Scepter'd Isle and little has changed since the Battle of the Spanish Armada, especially with their present serene alliance, our special friendship. This is in spite of a present Communist Bulge in The Western Hemisphere, about the Panama Canal Zone, our own Hong Kong, expansion of which may yet cause consternation and civil engineering crises in Bayonne and elsewhere due to increased shipping tonnage.

From a Small Wars perspective, the threat is globalist communist incursion in South America. Enslavement of the populations & thievery of their resources of gas, oil, precious metals, woods, minerals, gems and water will be sought by the enemies of the American way of life.

To what degree are China and Cuba influencing action in the region?

Have North Korean and Iranian agents spread their influence there also?

Do circumstances indicate future obligation and investment on our part?

Bullmoose Bailey
05-20-2012, 01:44 PM
http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

Respectfully submitted

JMA
05-20-2012, 02:03 PM
This thread prompted me to recall the television coverage of the aftermath of one of the successful Argentine attacks upon a Royal Navy vessel -- probably the HMS Sheffield, but I am not certain -- at the time. As best I can remember it generated a strong mix of confusion, curiosity, and concern for me at the time. I guess that is to be expected given that I was a six-year-old who had witnessed precious little non-fictional violence and none that I can recall (non-fictional or otherwise) on TV. Was the coverage of the aftermath of the attack upon the Sheffield (or of any other British ships) notable in Britain or Argentina?

A mix I suggest... what do you think?

Hundimiento del Sheffield || Sinking of the Sheffield (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYYRqMFsZ6Y&feature=related)

ganulv
05-20-2012, 02:18 PM
A mix I suggest... what do you think?

Hundimiento del Sheffield || Sinking of the Sheffield (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYYRqMFsZ6Y&feature=related)

Some of the stuff in the comments section is great. One of them amounts to “How can you seriously think the Malvinas are Argentine if the only people living on those rough ass islands are Englishmen willing to herd sheep for a living?”

JMA
05-20-2012, 04:22 PM
Some of the stuff in the comments section is great. One of them amounts to “How can you seriously think the Malvinas are Argentine if the only people living on those rough ass islands are Englishmen willing to herd sheep for a living?”

Who cares about a few shepherds when there is oil under them thar waters. ;)

Dayuhan
05-20-2012, 10:42 PM
Although their ability to project Air-Sea dominance is presently minimal, for a moment which will not last, The UK remains capable of projecting power vis-a-vis amphibious forces.

Do you really expect the UK to regain the capacity to project Air-Sea dominance? Hardly seems likely, given he state of their economy.


From a Small Wars perspective, the threat is globalist communist incursion in South America.

Probably a matter for another thread, but I'd be curious about how that conclusion was reached.


Enslavement of the populations & thievery of their resources of gas, oil, precious metals, woods, minerals, gems and water will be sought by the enemies of the American way of life.

Yes, they lack our altruism.

Bullmoose Bailey
05-22-2012, 02:30 AM
Do you really expect the UK to regain the capacity to project Air-Sea dominance? Hardly seems likely, given he state of their economy.

Dear Dayuhan:

In reference to your above query, I do so expect.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/design-preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future-carrier-updated-01630/

The HMS Queen Elizabeth and the HMS Prince of Wales will be the largest warships ever built for the RN & basically complement the Nimitz class better than the Invincible class ever could.

davidbfpo
05-22-2012, 09:49 PM
The contract to build two large British aircraft carriers was so legally constructed they could not be cancelled, thanks to the UK's most powerful lobby, BAE. Instead we face the strong likelihood of having two carriers minus any aircraft to fly from them (assuming the F35 flies and is produced) and a nation unable for a host of reasons to put both into operational use.

I do not think it is a wise strategic choice to order the carriers, even more so given the state of the economy. An 'Air-Sea dominance' role is not one I recall being made much of, usually the very minimal debate has featured the flexible projection of influence and the power to intervene.

Defending the Falklands is a very low priority for the UK, despite the diplomatic noise from Argentina, which has neither the will or capability currently to use force and BA has stressed force is not an option.

Red Rat
05-24-2012, 06:13 PM
The Royal Navy currently possesses 20 Major Surface Combat Vessels, of which on average 5 are in refit at any one time. I very much doubt that the Royal Navy could put together 1 x Carrier Group (a carrier needs escorts) let alone 2.

At the strategic level the UK policy appears to be to make the Falklands issue one of self-determination, while at th same time making clear that the Falklands sovereignty issue is not linked to that of South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the British 'slice' of Antarctica. If the Falkland Islanders did decide (or it was decided for them :rolleyes:) to join Argentina then valuable fishing and natural resource rights, as well as a claim to Antarctica would remain. I cannot help but wonder though, what would happen if the Falkland Islanders opted to join Chile instead...

Currently the Falklands are very prosperous with one of the highest per capita incomes in the Commonwealth and an enviable standard of living. The prosperity is based on incomes from fishing revenues. The commercial exploitation of oil and gas in territorial waters (including the claimed Exclusive Economic Zone - the EEZ) would be a strategic game changer for both the UK and Argentina.

One thing that the UK learnt very clearly from the 1982 conflict was the value of maybe having submarines in the area; I would expect this to continue.

davidbfpo
12-28-2012, 10:33 AM
The UK press have been feasting on the newly released Cabinet papers for 1982, under the 'Thirty Year Rule' for public disclosure and so we have this headline 'US wanted to warn Argentina about South Georgia'. I recall that relations were a little taut, but this stretches the imagination:
The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files.

US strategic, national policy aside it has been in the public domain for many years the divergence between DoS and DoD; this disclosure is new to the public.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9767707/US-wanted-to-warn-Argentina-about-South-Georgia.html

ganulv
12-28-2012, 04:39 PM
The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files.
Or was it just Secretary “I am in control here” Haig? :rolleyes:

carl
12-28-2012, 06:22 PM
Haig's attitude seems chicken hearted at its base. An attitude of 'Yes, but... What if...Oh maybe we can be work it so everybody likes us...' Not only is that chicken hearted it is immature. There are times when you have to choose a side. I think Haig's attitude is maybe in the ascendant nowadays.

Maggie on the other hand, she always was a better man than most men.

davidbfpo
12-28-2012, 11:54 PM
Carl posted:
Maggie on the other hand, she always was a better man than most men.

The invasion of the Falkland Islands was the nearest that Mrs Thatcher came to losing power - until many years later, from within her own party - such was the power of the parliamentary reaction; note public anger took awhile to develop. The then Leader of the Opposition, from the Labour party was Michael Foot, made an amazing speech, some viewed it as his best, to a packed and angry House of Commons.

Yes three government ministers resigned, from the Foreign Office (FCO), notably it's head Lord Carrington.

Bill Moore
12-29-2012, 03:49 AM
From the article David provided the link to


He feared that support for a European colonial power would undermine ties with Latin America and hamper Washington’s covert campaign against communism in the western hemisphere.

Our relationship with the UK and other colonial powers has a long history of being troublesome, and the deals we made to support France, UK, and the Dutch regain their colonies in Asia alone after WWII have resulted in tens of thousands being killed. The American idea of independence was compromised and we lost considerable influence that at the time played into the hands of the communists.

Fast forward to 1982 and Latin America where we were supporting a number of States battle communist insurgencies and had the Monroe Doctrine I can understand Haig's position. I definitely don't agree in putting an ally at risk by compromising their mission, but overt U.S. support couldn't be beneficial to our longer term interests in the region. Some other approach to mediate the conflict may have been possible, but I suspect like everything we do it was crisis action planning and they were looking for expedient means to minimize damage to our national interests.

We had a similiar spat where we actually acted (diplomatically and economically) during the Suez Crisis (1956/7) time frame against the UK and France. Nassar and the Egyptian people saw the UK as a greater threat to their national interests than the USSR, and the US needed Egypt in their anti-communist coalition. Nations act to pursue their interests.

carl
12-29-2012, 04:39 AM
I definitely don't agree in putting an ally at risk by compromising their mission, but overt U.S. support couldn't be beneficial to our longer term interests in the region. Some other approach to mediate the conflict may have been possible, but I suspect like everything we do it was crisis action planning and they were looking for expedient means to minimize damage to our national interests.

I look at it a little differently. We do have to give our nation the best chance. But in the case of the Falklands, what actually gave our nation the best chance to do well in the world at large over decades to come? I think the best chance was not to seek advantage with Argentina, which in the context of the world's countries is the prototype of an ineffectual lightweight. The best chance was to stand with a historic ally with whom we have the closest possible cultural ties and a country that for the previous 600 years had been a force to be reckoned with, not to mention a critical part of the forces facing the Bear in Europe at the time. We would have been nuts to have equated good relations with Argentina with standing by the Brits.

Bill Moore
12-29-2012, 05:35 AM
Carl,

I agree the UK was and remains a valued Ally, but it wasn't simply weighing the value of the relationship between Argentia and the UK, in that case the UK wins with a wide margin. The difficult part was assessing the potential on the region at large (Latin America). I think Haig did his job advising the President that it could cause problems. Reagan never waivered from supporting the UK, but admitted it put it us in a tough position.

It did result in severely undermining the Rio Treaty, but it was already problematic, so it wasn't that much of a loss. Furthermore, Argentia was an aggressive nation that concerned a lot of the nations in the region. Apparently they were getting ready to invade Chile before the conflict in the Falkands went bad (for them). In the end I don't think our low profile assistance hurt us.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB374/


At a meeting in London on April 8, 1982, shortly after the war began, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher expressed concern to U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig about President Ronald Reagan's recent public statements of impartiality. In response, according to a previously secret memorandum of the conversation, "The Secretary said that he was certain the Prime Minister knew where the President stood. We are not impartial."


a conversation with British officials at the end of March, Haig declared that the U.S. diplomatic effort "will of course, have a greater chance of influencing Argentine behavior if we appear to them not to favor one side or the other."


At the same time, the White House recognized that British intransigence would create problems for the U.S. in its dealings with Latin America. President Reagan, reacting to Haig's secret reports on the British position, wrote to the secretary: "[Your report] makes clear how difficult it will be to foster a compromise that gives Maggie enough to carry on and at the same time meets the test of 'equity' with our Latin neighbors."

More at the site.

carl
12-29-2012, 05:45 PM
Bill:

In the realm of what might have beens, how do you think the Argentines would have fared if they had attacked Chile?

Bill Moore
12-30-2012, 03:29 AM
Bill:

In the realm of what might have beens, how do you think the Argentines would have fared if they had attacked Chile?

Not a clue, but I suspect we have folks monitoring who worked in that region and could offer an educated guess.