Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:International law defines national sea boundaries and rights to the underlying seabed and resources.

While on the large scale map the Falklands look close to South America, they are actually 250 nautical miles away and well outside Argentina's area of exclusive economic interest which extends 200 miles.

The Argentinians therefore have no claim on the Falklands or the immediate area of possible resources. Obviously there is an overlap between the zones of the Falklands and Argentina. This would have to be resolved by negotiation and treaty.

Conversely the oil bearing areas in the North Sea are all within the 200 nm limit of the surrounding nations such as the UK and Norway. It would be illegal for Argentinians to pitch up and start drilling without permission.

The historical claim of the UK to sovereignty over the Falklands is clear and solid. It is also backed by post-WW2 treaties on the right to self-determination.

If the islands are sitting on rich natural resources, perhaps they are worth fighting for.

That only matters if your guns are bigger than their guns. paper means nothing. Ask the Cheyenne.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:My point exactly. Put a few more planes there to deter offensive action against the islands.

One of the big problems we had during the Falklands war was establishing air superiority in the area.

That would do it, or dial in a nuke with a Buenos Ares address on it and put it right in the middle of the biggest island.

chaos0xomega wrote:You know, I'm all for self determination and all, but has anyone ever bothered to look at the Falklands population? A bit over 3,000 people... its the second least densely populated region in the world, second only to Greenland (which has 57,000 people living in an area that is technically much larger but mostly uninhabitable). Two-thirds of that population live in Stanley, the other third are scattered farmers and live in small communities. When cruise ships come into port, the tourist population can easily outnumber the local population.

At that point, when the population is so small, and so concentrated in one area, it really begs the question, do they have the right to self-determination over such a large, mostly uninhabited area? It seems to me the British should either star colonizing the islands, or seek out a compromise with the Argentines and pull a Northern Ireland type situation, giving most of the territory to them and keeping a small sliver of it around the Stanley area for themselves. I'm sorry but the reality is that you cannot claim the right to self-determination when the vast majority of a very very very small population is 1. non-aborignal and 2. mostly concentrated into a very very small area of a much larger territory that is mostly uninhabited.

BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P

And in regards to Ketaras comment about Spain, I will point out that Spain backs Argentina's claim (as does the Peoples Republic of China oddly enough...)

I wasn't aware that your right to your own country depended upon your population figure. One usually presumes it is conferred primarily by the fact that you live there. As to being non-aboriginal, well, there was nobody on those islands 'originally'. One could claim that 180 years on, they are now the original populace.

And Spain may back whichever countries right to another countries territory they choose. That doesn't make the initial claim any more valid. If South Africa decided it wanted to own Zimbabwe, and we decided to back them, it wouldn't make their claim any better.

The fact is simply that Argentina has no claim to the islands, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.

I wasn't aware that your right to your own country depended upon your population figure. One usually presumes it is conferred primarily by the fact that you live there. As to being non-aboriginal, well, there was nobody on those islands 'originally'. One could claim that 180 years on, they are now the original populace.

Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens. In any case, 'your right to your own country' does depend on your population figure when you're using self-determination as an argument (otherwise, you know, you don't have a population to claim self determination in the first place...), and not the fact that its "your land" (which I've yet to hear the British government actually claim, most likely because of the complicated history of the islands and the fact that the British have about as much right to claim it as a sovereign territory as the Spanish do, read up on the history of how these 'claims' were made and you'll see why, apparently a plaque affirming territorial sovereignty is all you need...). If your right to your own country isn't based off of population, then we should probably give the Polish corridor and East Prussia back to the Germans. After all, the right to your own country isn't based on who is living there, so we can ignore all the Poles and Russians that have been sitting on the land since the German population was expelled after World War 2, and it was German land well before it was any of theirs. The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.

And using your own arguments against you, that would be like me settling on one of the dozens of tiny unpopulated rocks called islands in northern scotland, etc. and claiming it as a United States territory. Nobody was on the island originally, one could claim that two weeks on, I am now the original populace and therefore have the right to self-determination.

Damn it, Frazz and Chaos Omega, who's side on are you on?? What happened to Washington favours, the special relationship, the trans-atlantic alliance, Truman's visit to London etc etc

Say what you want about Ronald Reagan, but the guy was loyal to his allies and would have backed us all the way.

I mean, all those years of watching presedential election coverage, buying John Wayne films on DVD...I mean that's got to count for something???

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Damn it, Frazz and Chaos Omega, who's side on are you on?? What happened to Washington favours, the special relationship, the trans-atlantic alliance, Truman's visit to London etc etc

Say what you want about Ronald Reagan, but the guy was loyal to his allies and would have backed us all the way.

I mean, all those years of watching presedential election coverage, buying John Wayne films on DVD...I mean that's got to count for something???

Didn't you hear? The special relationship went out the window with the 2008 election.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. I am just saying that its not the early 1980s any more. You don't have the naval power you had. As importantly, while Argentina is still the crapper, Brazil isn't. They have strength, strength to change the outcome to something entirely different in a full on balls to the wall fight.

I'm not taking sides, I'm playing Devils Advocate. I'm all for imperialistic expansionist policies, if a nation is strong enough to claim an area as their own and they have the ability to back up that claim, then I believe it is that nations natural right to do so. (Read: I support the UK's right to claim the Falklands so long as they have the military capacity to do so, in the event that the Argentines some how manage to re-invade, re-capture, and then thwart off the counter-attack, then tough crap, its Argentinastan's, fair and square, though you are always free to attempt a re-capture of your own).

I'm just happy there's one potential war in the world the US is actually not involved in.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens. In any case, 'your right to your own country' does depend on your population figure when you're using self-determination as an argument (otherwise, you know, you don't have a population to claim self determination in the first place...), and not the fact that its "your land" (which I've yet to hear the British government actually claim, most likely because of the complicated history of the islands and the fact that the British have about as much right to claim it as a sovereign territory as the Spanish do, read up on the history of how these 'claims' were made and you'll see why, apparently a plaque affirming territorial sovereignty is all you need...). If your right to your own country isn't based off of population, then we should probably give the Polish corridor and East Prussia back to the Germans. After all, the right to your own country isn't based on who is living there, so we can ignore all the Poles and Russians that have been sitting on the land since the German population was expelled after World War 2, and it was German land well before it was any of theirs. The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.

And using your own arguments against you, that would be like me settling on one of the dozens of tiny unpopulated rocks called islands in northern scotland, etc. and claiming it as a United States territory. Nobody was on the island originally, one could claim that two weeks on, I am now the original populace and therefore have the right to self-determination.

One would assume that actually having a population as the precursor to having self-determination would be assumed (otherwise there'd be no population to claim self-determination of, hmm?). I'm not sure however, that a certain level of population (beyond the minimum criteria to posses a 'population') is required before one can claim self-determination. That's still a new one, and I remain unconvinced. I've never heard it raised as a criteria for an ethnic grouping before.

The flaw in the rest of your reasoning, is that I need not necessarily demonstrate the complete legitimacy of the right of the Falkland Islanders to exist there indepedently of Argentina, rather, simply that their claim outweighs Argentina's. There is no such thing as truly 'owning' land, its nothing more than a social construct ultimately.

However, within the framework of the social construct that is international law, what is perceived of as having a 'right' to the land is based on many factors.

The Falklanders have in their support the factors of:-

- History (180 years of settlement)
-Self determination (the right to decide whether they wish to belong to another power or themselves).
- Military protection (they shelter under the wing of Great Britain)
- A lack of settlers before them, making their claim to be the only settlers undisputed,
-Recognition on the international stage as an ethnicity (they are called Falkland Islanders, not English).

The Argentinians have :-

-They want it.
-Some other people with dubious political motives also say they should have it.

That's it.

I'm pretty sure weighing those two sides up, its quite apparent who has the pre-eminent claim there, at least from the point of Western Democracy.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens.

Try 1833.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.

That is pretty much the only reason anyone has any claim to any territory. All arguments from legitimacy are just window dressing for the plebes.

chaos0xomega wrote:
BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P

And in regards to Ketaras comment about Spain, I will point out that Spain backs Argentina's claim (as does the Peoples Republic of China oddly enough...)

You could say that America was a British terrirtory prior to it being American territory... now where does that put us?

Ketara wrote:
- A lack of settlers before them, making their claim to be the only settlers undisputed,

The Argentinians have :-

-They want it.
-Some other people with dubious political motives also say they should have it..

The Falklands were settled before the British by the French and the Spanish. If you read up on the history, the French ceded their claim to the Spanish and sometime later the British withdrew leaving a "plaque proclaiming British sovereignty over the islands" making the Spanish colonists the only settlers. The Spanish government over the island was withdrawn by the colonial government at Montevideo (which at the time administered Argentina) leaving a "plaque proclaiming Spanish sovereignty over the islands", eventually most of the colonists left to as I understand it. Some time later the British returned and re-settled the island, and this time they set up a stronger military presence to keep the Spanish from returning. When the Latin American states gained their independence from Spain, the Spanish passed along their claims to the new nations (hence the Spanish recognition of the Argentine claim). Technically, based on those grounds, the Argentines do have a legitimate claim to the island, just as legitimate as the English claim, the only difference is that the island now has a population large enough and of a persuasion that warrants rejecting the Argentinian claims to sovereignty as violating their right to self-determination.

Try 1833.

And yet the Falkland Islanders didn't gain British citizenship until 100 years later?

dogma wrote:The fact is that Poland and Russia have no claim on East Prussia and the Polish Corridor, beyond the fact that they want them. Period.

That is pretty much the only reason anyone has any claim to any territory. All arguments from legitimacy are just window dressing for the plebes.

People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!

Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc

As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!

Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc

As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.

Sure they can. Absent nukes (see my earlier post) how much force projection does the UK have without US help? Then compare the number of planes Argentina and Brazil have that are in range, plus SS missiles. Who comes out on top?

chaos0xomega wrote:
And yet the Falkland Islanders didn't gain British citizenship until 100 years later?

They're still not full citizens.

Especially considering how rapidly Brazil has been modernizing its Navy and Air Force... Give it a few more years and they will have commissioned their first nuclear submarine (based on French designs no less)

chaos0xomega wrote:Give it a few more years and they will have commissioned their first nuclear submarine (based on French designs no less)

Will it immediately surrender to the nearest German cruise liner?

It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.

In the end, superior training will out.

filbert wrote:It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.

In the end, superior training will out.

Actual question here. Do you have any aircraft to fly cover at this point?

Yes. Eurofighter squadrons.

filbert wrote:Yes. Eurofighter squadrons.

Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?

Frazzled wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!

Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc

As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.

Sure they can. Absent nukes (see my earlier post) how much force projection does the UK have without US help? Then compare the number of planes Argentina and Brazil have that are in range, plus SS missiles. Who comes out on top?

The UK. Will you drop this already? You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, you just seem to have this weird Armchair General power fantasy whereby all these backwater nations are able to defeat Britain's military. Why have you got such a chip on your shoulder about us, and more to the point, why haven't you been banned yet for constantly trolling the Britons on this forum?

Let's get some things straight:

- Brazil is not the global superpower you seem to think it is. Although Fox might like to peddle some ridiculous decline narrative whereby China, Brazil, India overtake a USA blighted by socialism, Brazil still occupies a somewhat precarious economic position, and millions of its people still live in quasi-medieval conditions. It's military might doesn't even come CLOSE to the UKs, and no amount of 'hurr they got more mans/money' makes that untrue. Someone mentioned that they just got their first nuclear sub. A British nuclear sub sank an Argentine warship in the original Falklands conflict. They are years behind us in terms of military tech. Brazil would be comprehensively defeated in an open conflict with the UK. That will remain the case for the forseeable future.

- Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.

- The force projection that the UK is capable of is second only to the USA's, so you're talking out of your arse there. Not that I'm surprised about that. We also have the second largest blue-water navy in NATO and one of the largest and most capable air forces, with technological capabilities that, again, are only surpassed by the US - and that is only in certain cases.


Frazzled - we get it. You don't like us. We're OK with that, but it's not an excuse to just make gak up.

Frazzled wrote:

filbert wrote:Yes. Eurofighter squadrons.

Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofighter_Typhoon
Not sure if they can or can't use Aircraft carriers but i have a feeling they cannot...

Frazzled wrote:

filbert wrote:Yes. Eurofighter squadrons.

Are you talking the Tornadoes? If so don't they need a full on aircraft carrier to launch (assuming they can from ships, again thats why I am asking). Do you have a carrier to get them there?

Well I would assume that any contingency plan involving an Argentinian/Brazilian invasion of the Falklands would involve being able to launch Eurofighter from a friendly airfield (assuming the RAF base on the Falklands itself was denied) since I believe the relevant aircraft carriers have already been decommissioned. Where that friendly airfield would be, I have no idea. Presumably within 1,800 miles since that is the Eurofighter range apparently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ships_of_the_Brazilian_Navy
Look who made their frigates...
All they really have is an old, rusty carrier, and a few frigates. They couldn't compare to the Royal Navy at all.
As others have said though, Brazil wouldn't have the political or popular will to support out and out war (probably illegal internationally as well). Wonder how well their booming export economy would do with British warships sinking their container ships?
And the Argentines don't begin to compare.

And anyway, would a response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.

Frazzled wrote:

filbert wrote:It doesn't matter how big or how much money the Brazilian or Argentinian governments spend on their armies - they will do the same thing that the Argies did in '82 - guns thrown down, hands in the air '¡No disparen!' (or Portuguese equivalent) as soon as the Marines or Paras crest the hill.

In the end, superior training will out.

Actual question here. Do you have any aircraft to fly cover at this point?

We have 4 typhoons on the island, which is enough to eliminate 3/4 of the Argentine airforce on their own. On top of that, all we need to do is park a pair of Type 45 destroyers off the coast, and Argentina won't even be able to launch sorties from the mainland.

And let us not forget that we could have another set of Typhoons there overnight using in flight refueling systems.

No, militarily, the islands are ours to keep. We're not going to be caught napping again on this one.

filbert wrote:And anyway, would response to Argentinian invasion necessarily require air support? Was the original Falklands war fought from a position of air superiority? (genuine question - I'm not sure). Presumably the MOD have surmised that a deployed navy would be enough to combat the Argentinian air force.

At the time of the Falklands, we were operating under an unenviable, and rather stupid doctrine whereby we assumed that we'd be able to launch aircraft from an allied airfield in any plausible scenario. Nobody saw us going to war in such a remote location (the nearest airfields were in South Africa at the time). Our anti-aircraft destroyers had also had corners cut in the construction that weakened them severely.


In todays scenario, we have even better aircraft capability, in flight refueling, an airfield on the island, and Type 45 destroyers infinitely superior to what we had then. The Argentine's, bar the acquisition of a handful of upgraded Skyhawks from the US, have exactly what they did back then (Mirages and Pucaras), and considerably less of them.

chaos0xomega wrote:
BTW, the Falklands were an American territory prior to being an Argentinian territory ;P

chaos0xomega wrote:
Technically the Falklands, as I understand it, weren't even really part of the UK until 1983, merely an area claimed, and its population basically second class citizens.

Admittedly I didn't stray from Wikipedia in checking but I can find no basis that supports these statements, nor can I remember one from any other source. Aside from the actually citizenship of the Falklanders which I also admit I don't care enough to look into. The dispute between Argentina and the UK has always been spoiled by that nasty little detail that the Falklands don't WANT to be part of Argentina, and that offers to take it to international courts have been flatly refused, by Argentina. I did catch that a constitution of the Falklands exists which I imagine is very much like the original constitution of Canada; allowing mostly internal self government at the convenience of Parliament.

Kilkrazy wrote:Perhaps the USA might like to take that principle to the United Nations for consideration.

The violent internal part of me wants you to reconsider this. I firmly believe the UN has outlived its usefulness, and as anti-US as they are I would LOVE for us to tell them to find a new home.
/rant -

Frazzled wrote:I'm just happy there's one potential war in the world the US is actually not involved in.

Not so fast, people are being OPPRESSED how can we stand by and watch: BOMB LONDON!
Yeah, right. I can see US involvement, on the British side if the Argentinians decide to push this to war...again, perhaps at the behest of congress rather than POTUS...ahh a dream of returning to Constitutional authority where congress declares war and the President executes it.

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:People in America have short memories. If it wasn't for people like me, then Dallas would not have been the smash hit TV that it was!

Back OT From whatever legal angle you look at it UN, EU, high court, supreme court, Estonian court etc Argentina does not have a leg to stand on. For a group of people who themselves descended from colonialists to attack Britain for being an imperial power, well i just want to HAHAHAHA etc etc

As for Brazil, long run we could not compete with their resources, but this isn't total war. It's a short sharp military operation from a country that has plentyof recent combat experience in the middle east. Argentina and Brazil could not compete in the short term. Of course, all this is hypothetical.

Sure they can. Absent nukes (see my earlier post) how much force projection does the UK have without US help? Then compare the number of planes Argentina and Brazil have that are in range, plus SS missiles. Who comes out on top?

The UK. Will you drop this already? You haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about, you just seem to have this weird Armchair General power fantasy whereby all these backwater nations are able to defeat Britain's military. Why have you got such a chip on your shoulder about us, and more to the point, why haven't you been banned yet for constantly trolling the Britons on this forum?

Let's get some things straight:

- Brazil is not the global superpower you seem to think it is. Although Fox might like to peddle some ridiculous decline narrative whereby China, Brazil, India overtake a USA blighted by socialism, Brazil still occupies a somewhat precarious economic position, and millions of its people still live in quasi-medieval conditions. It's military might doesn't even come CLOSE to the UKs, and no amount of 'hurr they got more mans/money' makes that untrue. Someone mentioned that they just got their first nuclear sub. A British nuclear sub sank an Argentine warship in the original Falklands conflict. They are years behind us in terms of military tech. Brazil would be comprehensively defeated in an open conflict with the UK. That will remain the case for the forseeable future.

- Brazil will not declare war on the United Kingdom. Never in a million years. For that to happen they would have to be willing to destroy all the progress they have made in recent years, all the economic improvement, all the international goodwill and respectability, everything. Argentina doesn't have the credibility that Brazil does, so they don't care.

- The force projection that the UK is capable of is second only to the USA's, so you're talking out of your arse there. Not that I'm surprised about that. We also have the second largest blue-water navy in NATO and one of the largest and most capable air forces, with technological capabilities that, again, are only surpassed by the US - and that is only in certain cases.


Frazzled - we get it. You don't like us. We're OK with that, but it's not an excuse to just make gak up.

Working thrugh some issues there Alby? It was a question. Usually you can note a question by the "?" at the end. No one yet has noted what force projection the UK has at this point. A lot? Little? What?

The UK has the ability to project more Naval and Marine forces in the area than the Argentines can overcome, the only questionably component is Aviation.