1982 Falklands (Malvinas) War: a view from across the pond

[Gribbers]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

that's the whole point of the debate, if you're of British descent it's obvious that you'll lean towards being dependent from Britain. The whole point is that there's a need to re-establish some balance, regardless of what people say (after all, do our Governments normally listen to us?!).


well, some areas are deliberately left off-limits because of the lack of an agreement, and frankly if you could choose between a share or the whole thing, what would you choose? Another war would be probably made acceptable, and it's only our energetic needs that we have to thank for that.


well I'm sure it was an interesting test for the Royal Navy Harriers, and frankly I would have expected the Skyhawks and Mirage III to be more of a threat, but then again operational limits played an important role in the whole conflict.

Another interesting thing is that the Argentinian Air Force doesn't seem to have changed much since '82!

Goods points...

I personally have no issue with them being completely independant from Britain, and in all honesty, still admire and respect the Argentinians, both from the 1980's and today

The episode that interested me the most in the entire conflict was the potential SAS operation on Argentine soil...almost certainly suicidal...called off due to bad weather.

[baronWastelan]

well I'm sure it was an interesting test for the Royal Navy Harriers, and frankly I would have expected the Skyhawks and Mirage III to be more of a threat,

Please tell why?

[Kupsised]

From a realistic perspective the argument over who should have control over the Falkland Islands is pretty simply solved by international law. Under the UN Charter all peoples have a right to self determination, whatever that may be (meaning it doesn't matter if it's independence, assimilation or anything in between). The people on the Falkland Islands have selfly determined that they wish to remain a protectorate of the United Kingdom and, thus, legally that's what they are, end of.

The Argentinian argument against this is based around territorial integrity, but this doesn't really stand as it's debatable whether the islands were ever part of Argentina in the first place, whether it was in Spains powers to give the islands to the Argentinians or whether the British stole the islands or merely took what was not being used. Since this isn't clear and it's not like we can call witnesses from the time in order to testify, logically the only legal basis to consider is that of self determination. The argument that the Falkland Islands are closer to Argentina is just rubbish because 'it's closer to us than them' doesn't stand up against codified international law. That's like taking your neighbours car because he parked it closer to your house than his, it just wouldn't stand up in a court of law.

Of course there is a whole argument that the British placed what are now the Falklanders there, but that doesn't matter. They are not only the dominant party on the island, they are more or less the only party on the island. That is maybe a matter of ethical behaviour, but it is not a matter of law.

I'm seriously surprised I don't see the UN Charter cited in the news more often, or even from anyone arguing the British point of view. It is essetially the most important form of international law and it comes down pretty heavily in the favour of the Falklands remaining British as long as they want to.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that I don't support either the British or the Argentine side in the argument, that's just as far as the problem goes in a purely legal context. Of course, we all know international law isn't always followed...

[TomcatViP]

Hello BaronW,

Just a remark abt the analysis you hve posted.

In the arly 80's, the US with the Reagan's administration where pressing the cold war equilibrum just like a limon to let the last drop out of it. The idea was to force the USSR toward unsustainable military expenses. Things you all know abt.

What import here is that Germany and UK where the very play ground of that new policy mostly illustrated in the early 80's by the Pershing's SSBM installations and the vast deployement of tactical nuclear assets based away from the VVS in UK (there was no Flankers at that time).

When came the Falkan's crisis the UK gov whre forced to give away their advantageous position in this NATO new US led policy for some tactical benits (reco assets, military equipmnets delivered immediatly, sat intels etc...).

To says things shortly : it was a good bargain for the US.

But don't take me wrong. I am not singing the old "US are evil"complaint. I simply think that they took a given opportunity.

However, to say that UK absolutely needed that help wld be a wrong assumption. As you said it only spare lives (on both sides).

Oh .. and don't forget the Chilian help to the UK regarding intelligence, radar and communications.

Both sides fought bravely. If you hve ever been down that part of the world, I am sure you'll understand the terrific nature of air combat above deserted vast land area, cold sea and the challenging weather of the sth seas during the season.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by Gribbers

Goods points...

I personally have no issue with them being completely independant from Britain, and in all honesty, still admire and respect the Argentinians, both from the 1980's and today

The episode that interested me the most in the entire conflict was the potential SAS operation on Argentine soil...almost certainly suicidal...called off due to bad weather.

yeah, the SAS involvement was interesting indeed, they still managed to make a great deal of sabotaging though, didn't they?

Originally Posted by baronWastelan

Please tell why?

well one would expect the Mirage to be and Scooter to be at least on par with the Harrier, and whilst the Argentinians had limited range, the Royal Navy had to operate from aircraft carriers, with all the logistic constrains it carries. I dunno, many think that the Argentinians only had Pucaras, but there was more to it me thinks.

Originally Posted by Kupsised

From a realistic perspective the argument over who should have control over the Falkland Islands is pretty simply solved by international law. Under the UN Charter all peoples have a right to self determination, whatever that may be (meaning it doesn't matter if it's independence, assimilation or anything in between). The people on the Falkland Islands have selfly determined that they wish to remain a protectorate of the United Kingdom and, thus, legally that's what they are, end of.

The Argentinian argument against this is based around territorial integrity, but this doesn't really stand as it's debatable whether the islands were ever part of Argentina in the first place, whether it was in Spains powers to give the islands to the Argentinians or whether the British stole the islands or merely took what was not being used. Since this isn't clear and it's not like we can call witnesses from the time in order to testify, logically the only legal basis to consider is that of self determination. The argument that the Falkland Islands are closer to Argentina is just rubbish because 'it's closer to us than them' doesn't stand up against codified international law. That's like taking your neighbours car because he parked it closer to your house than his, it just wouldn't stand up in a court of law.Of course there is a whole argument that the British placed what are now the Falklanders there, but that doesn't matter. They are not only the dominant party on the island, they are more or less the only party on the island. That is maybe a matter of ethical behaviour, but it is not a matter of law.

I'm seriously surprised I don't see the UN Charter cited in the news more often, or even from anyone arguing the British point of view. It is essetially the most important form of international law and it comes down pretty heavily in the favour of the Falklands remaining British as long as they want to.

EDIT: It's worth pointing out that I don't support either the British or the Argentine side in the argument, that's just as far as the problem goes in a purely legal context. Of course, we all know international law isn't always followed...

..I'm afraid you're missing the point here, nobody is arguing about the right of self-determination, it's about how did the Brits end up on such small islands on the other side of the world..

Again, there isn't much of a "blurred story", it was a case of British settlers taking territory and kicking out Argentinian communities, so one could also argue that the British sovereignty is based on an illegal occupation.
I wouldn't concentrate on what people there want, as much as understanding whether they actually have any rights to decide for the island's territoriality or whether they've been squatting there for generations.

To use an example similar to yours: imagine your neighbour has a bungalow adjacent to your property, he decides he doesn't need it and gives it to you. You put some tools in there, but don't really use it that much. Some people from another state come around and see the bungalow, they squat in it, you don't make much of it for years (maybe cos you don't care, maybe cos you want to be nice to the foreigners or simply don't have the means to evict them) and they gradually kick all your stuff out and claim it as theirs, so that when you have enough of it and decide to claim it back, you can't, cos the squatters say it's theirs.

Or in a nutshell, think of what happened in Dale Farm...

[fruitbat]

Yet you say its silly to look at what happened 500 years ago, but 200 is important.

What's your cut off point and rational for this? I'm curious as to where you draw the line, 300 years Ok, but 299 not?

[Kupsised]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..I'm afraid you're missing the point here, nobody is arguing about the right of self-determination, it's about how did the Brits end up on such small islands on the other side of the world..

Again, there isn't much of a "blurred story", it was a case of British settlers taking territory and kicking out Argentinian communities, so one could also argue that the British sovereignty is based on an illegal occupation.
I wouldn't concentrate on what people there want, as much as understanding whether they actually have any rights to decide for the island's territoriality or whether they've been squatting there for generations.

To use an example similar to yours: imagine your neighbour has a bungalow adjacent to your property, he decides he doesn't need it and gives it to you. You put some tools in there, but don't really use it that much. Some people from another state come around and see the bungalow, they squat in it, you don't make much of it for years (maybe cos you don't care, maybe cos you want to be nice to the foreigners or simply don't have the means to evict them) and they gradually kick all your stuff out and claim it as theirs, so that when you have enough of it and decide to claim it back, you can't, cos the squatters say it's theirs.

Or in a nutshell, think of what happened in Dale Farm...

As I said, legally, it doesn't matter how they got there, they have been there for long enough now for the self determination principle to apply. 200 years in a long time, for example there are many countries in Europe are only just over half that age, but no one would consider giving them back to former occupiers because it simply doesn't work that way. In the same way, the Falkland Islands are, legally, an established entity, but not a state, simply because they have chosen to remain the protectorate which is their right under self determination of peoples. The case for the Falklands remaining British has international law on its side and there is no higher law than that. My post was simply pointing out the legal argument, and that's all that is.

As for the issue not being blurred, check the wikipedia article for the 'Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands' (for your convenience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...lkland_Islands) and note the amount of times the word 'dispute(d)' and variations there of are used prior to 1833. The pre-British 'ownership' of the islands is not clear as Spain, Britain, Argentina and to some extent France could in theory claim a stake in the islands. Actually, if you read that link, it also points out that Great Britain has repeatedly tried to refer the case to the ICJ and Argentina kept refusing.

Makes you wonder why they might not want to go to court, doesn't it.

[Osprey]

Britain was very fortunate to win it in 82. Many things happened in the conflict itself which went against the Argies, and frankly I'm glad because they were only there as a PR exercise for the Junta and the Falklanders didn't want them.

As for now? Well, we have a Typhoon squadron stationed there permanently along with 1000 or so professional soldiers, a few ships and tomahawk equipped subs pottering about and the island is bristling with Rapier missiles so I'm not expecting an invasion. If it comes then a lot of Argies will end up dead to take it. Furthermore the intel is way higher than in 1982 - word of buildup and attack would be spotted well in advance.

[TomcatViP]

Well if really tht's what they wanted they wld hve only to wait the day Thyphies are grded. Tht won't be too long for sure... Why do you think the island is still "blistering" with expensive to maintain Rapier missiles

More over Britain's leaders shld be aware tht if 30 years ago the Argentinian leaders did not really hve their people behind them and only a few allies, nowaday, it wld be quite different.

Analysing the spirit across the Sth Am peninsula, I am on the verge of thinking tht some countries like Br or even Cl wld now join the Argentinian ranks if the storyboard is to be replayed.

[Kupsised]

Originally Posted by TomcatViP

Well if really tht's what they wanted they wld hve only to wait the day Thyphies are grded. Tht won't be too long for sure... Why do you think the island is still "blistering" with expensive to maintain Rapier missiles

More over Britain's leaders shld be aware tht if 30 years ago the Argentinian leaders did not really hve their people behind them and only a few allies, nowaday, it wld be quite different.

Analysing the spirit across the Sth Am peninsula, I am on the verge of thinking tht some countries like Br or even Cl wld now join the Argentinian ranks if the storyboard is to be replayed.

I don't think they'd join in in open conflict, but they wouldnät need to. Argentina certainly have the support of Brazil at least on this issue, and they are the biggest power in South America. If it came to conflict the damage being sanctioned by Brazil could do to Britain's economy and presence is South America is enough reason alone not to let it get that far in my opinion, but of course there are many other reasons too.