The Falkland Islands.

What will the future hold for "that little ice-cold bunch of land" as Ronnie Reagan once described it?

There's no doubt that all the current residents who expressed a preference (bar 3 apparently) want to remain under British rule, but there's also little doubt that Argentina has a legitimate geographical and historical claim.

One reason why I began this thread is that I find the subject arouses disproportionately strong feelings and I'd be keen to analys why objectively, rather than descend into "Gotcha" style ranting.

I've known about the Falklands all my life: my Dad was based there as a "FID" or Falkland Island Dependent when he was in the Antarctic; I was 17 when the Falklands War took place and remember it feeling guiltily exciting at first, as we "counted them all out and counted them all back" and perhaps that's the key: it was my first experience of Britain being involved in a conflict that wasn't either covert or waged against Undertones-lookalikes in Norn Iron.

Although you can't argue that the Islanders want to remain under British rule, there is an obvious truth that as they are virtually all of (pretty recent) British stock it would be astonishing if they suddenly expressed a desire to become Argentinian.

Similarly, it's pretty obvious that the recent stirring of anti-British rhetoric and sentiment by Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is a cheap, cynical way to garner popularity with a certain home audience.

However, with the rather novel unity that has been afflicting south American régimes in the last decade or so, there is a growing danger that the Falklands will find themselves cut off from all their nearest geographical neighbours. Tourism, which is a life-blood to the tiny economy is going to be very difficult to maintain if no mainland air or seaport will handle Falklands bound or origin flights/vessels. Longer term, who will go and live in the Falklands, apart from increasingly bonkers Rule Britannia types, hell-bent on keeping the Union flag flying or those with an unnatural interest in sheep/penguins? It's more or less impossible to make a living doing anything on the islands and with any hint of uncertainty, it won't get easier to find families. Unless kids are born there, the argument that the islands are any more than just staffed by offshore Brits will fall apart. Of course, there are hundreds of communities/nations worldwide whose inhabitants are not indigenous. For instance, at the risk of a pot/kettle hue comparison scenario, the original Argentinians weren't exactly Spanish...

As, under international law (for now), the Islands' sovereignty isn't in question, it doesn't matter, but in the years to come it will begin to matter more.
Having said that, I doubt that there is a vast, excited queue of Argentinians who can't wait to get out there and... eke out a meagre living in the freezing, dull, rock'n'mud wasteland, except the equally-bonkers Union-flag burners from the streets of Buenos Aires.

If this were really about a centuries' old love for the Malvinas themselves, the Argentinians would have quietly (and strategically) made friends with the Islands, increasing trade and gradually having the odd mainlander join the community. In 50, 60 years, there would be a much more mixed blend of islanders, probably looking benignly towards the mainland's wealth and proximity and hearing the siren strains of God save the Queen far less loud. The war by then would be almost beyond living memory and it would make far more sense to slip quietly into the arms of Argentinian administration.

But it's not:

If there is, as seems possible, a colossal reserve of oil beneath the Falklands' territorial waters, then this issue will not go away. All of south America would benefit from an oil boom, just as the UK would give its right testicle to top up the dwindling North Sea.
While there's mineral wealth at stake, nobody is going to give way and it could all get pretty messy.

Well, that's my view and now it's nearly pub time.

What do you think? And do try not to use terms like "Argie" if you can possibly help it...

My solution is this... Argentinian government finances the purchase of every property sold in the Falklands from now on and installs an English speaking Argentinian family. It might take 50 or 100 years but it'll end up in Argentinian hands democratically and no one has to die.

The idea of one nation state "owning" bits of land all around the world seems totally anachronistic, a hangover from Empire, and as such, probably best if "we" either let all 14 territories have independence, or let the closest country take ownership, having given a UK passport and right to settle over here should they wish.

Interesting topic, I think it would be a brave prime minister who gave them back to Argentina.
Ironic isn't it, we cut back our Armed forces back in 81 (John Nott defence review) to save a few million and since then have spent billions on defence down there.
If the Argentinians really wanted to, I suspect they could take it militarily, our defence cuts mean we haven't got the forces to retake them. A quick special forces style raid, to take out the 4 Typhoons, or to destroy the 2 runways and it would be game over.
It's too isolated to resupply. A battalion of Infantry could hold out for a couple of weeks, but against a larger force, with closer re-supply, I doubt it.
As they allegedly say in the Russian military , "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics"...

Have the Argentinians got a historical claim? I thought theirs dates back to 1820, years after the French had founded a settlement (1764) West Falkland was settled by the English in 1766.

You say this, governments hear "Oil, oil, oil, oil oil, oil, oil..."

Does that really matter though? If, for example, prior to 1750 no-one lived on the Isle of Wight, and the Argentinians rolled up in 1800 and settled it, would you say that now in 2013 it's right for them to still "own" it??

Yes I would, after all thats worked for the USA?

Who'd want to own the IOW?

I'm too young to really venture an educated opinion on this subject. But the notion of nations owning territories on the other side of the world in this day and age seems a bit archaic.

That said, will I still be saying that when petrol is unaffordable?

Maybe that's the answer then, we keep Las Malivinas, and they can have the IOW!

As the last Falklands war is still very fresh in our and thier minds,i cant see much changing.
If Argentina step up thier effort to rule the Falklands the UK WILL defend it again without doubt.
Wether the UK or Argentina is within thier rights ! Who knows?
Possesion etc.

Mmm good luck with that. In an Argie/Brit SF spat, my money will ALWAYS be on us.

The FI are over 1000 miles off the Argentinian coast, they have no more right to them than anyone else. The current population have chosen to retain their ties with the UK. Should they change their minds we should respect that, in the meantime they are entitled to expect us to defend them.

As for the projection of power, coastal waters were those that were in range of shore mounted guns and a country could defend. Now we can park a nuke off the FI. Something the Argies can't do.

Does it have sand on its beaches and is Sunny/hot for most of the year?
I don't know what they look like! Going to Google pics and decide, save or reject.

It has penguins, apart from that by all accounts is a shithole...it didn't rank with Hong Kong, Cyprus, Canada or Berlin as a posting of choice..

So what you say is Brussels is actually a part of Turkey?

Possibly. I believe the residents of Waterloo have the right to claim British nationality, given that they would currently be French!

In fact the FI have been British longer than Germany has been a country.

And in fact only 23 years less than Belgium has been independent. So it has a right to exist.

So no Polar bears?
They never in the same place at the same time.


No tax paid to UK neither any money sought self sufficient utopia ?
Entertainment


Isle of Man. That's a horrid place! Neither bears or penguins.

The Falklands had a somewhat shallow gene pool, as a result the troops referred to the locals as "Bennies", after Crossroads' Benny.

Once the locals became aware of the connection there was a directive they could not be called Bennies.

In true squaddie fashion they became "Stills". As in "Still a Bennie".

The locals sussed this, another directive, and they became "Andies".

As in "Andies Still a Bennie".

Bennie owner a Coupe.
Degrees

Not sure I got that one.

Benny

Ah, I see

And what good would a nuclear submarine do? we had them back in 82, and apart from the Belgrano, I don't recall them doing much else? We only have 7 "Fleet"(USN calls them Attack Subs) and 4 "Ballistic" subs, we also have 18 destroyers and Frigates. The Argentinian Navy has two Diesel electric submarines, by definition these are quieter/more stealthy than a nuke.

Only problem is (in an Argie vs British SF spat) is that our SF would be here, and how exactly are we going to get them to the FI?

This makes for interesting reading http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/pol...ar-8544805.html

You missed the point. And good luck with the idea that a diesel is somehow superior to a nuke. Why do you think our diesel fleet were de-commsissioned while the nukes were retained? As for Conqueror in the Falklands, it didn't have to do anything else as the Argentinain fleet refused to sail following the sinking of the Belgrano. So in answer to your question, it had a significant effect on the outcome of the war. The refusal of the fleet to sail meant it had to take no further part. And that is the reason why it was justified.

Incidentally, as a quote from Wikipedia before everyone starts crying about the sinking:

" Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano". Captain Bonzo also told Middlebrook that he was not angry about the attack on his ship and "The limit [exclusion zone] did not exclude danger or risks; it was all the same in or out. I would like to be quite precise that, as far as I was concerned, the 200-mile limit was valid until 1 May, that is while diplomatic negotiations were taking place and/or until a real act of war took place, and that had happened on 1 May".

If you genuinely believe that there would be no SF in the Falklands at a time of a heightened alert state you are delusional. Although not a Commander myself, I consider we are currently in a state of heightened threat.

Despite dis-unity, we won. Maggie got it right. We ended up in Iraq the second time despite (Blair) goverment dis-unity. It means nothing, the final decision is what counts.

Two things that alarm me .
In your words we in heightened warning and Maggie was right.

My gut feeling is that they've expressed the wish to be British and not Argentinian and that - despite the Ambassador's posturing on R4 a couple of nights ago that it was an illegal referendum since it was not conducted under the auspices of the UN - they should therefore be allowed to remain British.

It does strike me that the people who have made all the improvements on the islands are the ancestors of the people who live there; they are the current landowners and they choose to live there under a UK legal system... why would they want to change?

That said: Galtieri wanted the Falklands in the eighties as a focus to distract attention from the complete mess the Junta had made of the country; Kerchner wants them to distract attention from the complete mess she's made of the country. Her biggest problem is that Argentina defaulted on an awful lot of international debts twenty years ago... cash from oil will potentially go a long way towards restitution. Also - irrespective of the cash value of the oil, there's the energy content of it: and control of energy is what makes economic power... there are a lot of good reasons from Argentina's side to grab for the Falklands.

But the military problem is interesting... The islands are only 300 miles from Argentina's nearest point; that's plenty near enough to project air cover from the mainland without need of vulnerable sea-air transport. The UK may arguably have superior technology already on the island but it has no carriers; choppers will be the best they can get in the air from the sea. Fine for anti-sub use and troop use but for projecting air power, what we've got is all we're going to get. Though... if there isn't the very best of anti-aircraft defences scattered round the Falklands someone hasn't been doing their jobs right.

Nonetheless, the UK can only project itself through what's left of the navy - a couple of nukes that can launch cruise missiles could be very tasty, or by getting boots on the ground before anything kicks off - which might be seen as provocation. Even though we probably have as big a lead in both practical experience and morale over the Argentine forces, and that the Kerchner has stated many times that there will be no invasion, it's not a position I'd like to be in if I we the UK government.

It may be of course, that negotiations could end with something like favoured prices for any oil, or cheap extraction licences - possibly the best option - and the Falkands remaining British.

Little doubt? Argentina has only existed as a country for about 150 years and was created by a population which had all but wiped out the pre-existing "legitimate" owners of the country by invasion and colonisation by the Spanish. The Falkland Islands on the other hand had no indigenous population being empty land until found and claimed, and the only Argentine historical claim to them is that they landed some people on them on an involontary basis for a very short period of time whilst the "owners" were on holiday , and those squatters were evicted within a year!

the argument that the islands are geographically closer to Argentina than the UK so that makes them Argentinian is ridiculous , extrapolate and all of a sudden Chile, Uraguay, Bolivia, Paraguay etc should belong to Argentina also!

I also seem to recall reading somewhere that having a base closer to the Antractic is another reason for retaining the FI, although I may be wrong on that. Much as Cyprus was important given it's proximity to the Middle East.

One big difference if there is a next time is that the Argentines would be trying to invade against an established defence. The difficulty of invading against established, highly trained (and currently combat experienced) forces cannot be underestimated. It was close last time, and the Argentines were poorly trained and poorly led.

Once aircraft are on the island and have use of the airfield, the lack of carriers will not be an issue. We needed carriers last time because we were trying to get onto the island, and had nowhere else to land.

Often overlooked as well were that in themselves they were a compromise, the Harrier is not an interceptor, but was the only fighter we could deploy from them. Despite that it performed very well against the Argentine Air Force, whose pilots proved themselves to be very courageous



I would not envisage Argentine aircraft getting too far into International waters before being engaged.

Roadking,

I take it you are unaware that diesel-electric submarines are quieter than Nuclear ones? And that means harder to detect? They are also smaller with less thermal output (when on batteries) And that means that in a sub vs sub battle they have a better chance of winning. The advantage that the nuclear has are no need to surface or refuel, longer range and higher (though more noisy) speed.

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20121222000143&cid=1101

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-190265.html

BTW my cousin is an officer on Subs, so we have chatted about this before!

Our last nuclear submarines were the Upholder class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine

You take it wrongly, Charlie. I certainly wouldn't envisage a sub vs sub battle, but that is a game played by our subs for the whole cold war, as your cousin will no doubt tell you. My reference to using a nuke was, as Barnacle suggested, as a missile platform to project power against Argentina, hence my reference to shore batteries. You can only dominate what you can reach.

I assume you meant conventional/diesel in your final comment?

We currently have one battalion (technically a roulement), thats one company of infantry, a squadron of engineers and a signals unit). Apparently the PWWR are the unit of choice for infantry.

Air defence is by the ageing (though still capable) Rapier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapier_(missile)

I still think that a special forces attack on the 4 fighters, followed by a landing of a couple of battalions of mechanised infantry would pose problems as without air support, the infantry company would be outgunned and out numbered.
Static defences have not worked in any recent modern conflict, ironically the way of overpowering static defences was shown by Blitzkreig and then the western wall was created (a static defence) which was overcome on D-Day.

Any air reinforcement of fighters would be difficult as they would have to fly to Ascension then be refuelled to Falklands, (Ferry range is 3,000 miles) lets just say that the Argentinians were to blow big holes in the runways! Then what?

You also have the problem of how much combat ready ordnance is actually stocked on the FI, so even if you get fighters in there, how many AIM9 or Skyflash are there ready to use?

Of course maybe we should let those who know have their say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10173723