Will the UK lose the Falklands?

[Bullmoose Bailey]

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).

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]

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

Respectfully submitted

[Dayuhan]

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]

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/...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]

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]

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 ) 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]

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/ukne...h-Georgia.html

[ganulv]

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?