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

[trashcanman]

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.

Sternjaeger II, please could you explain exactly what Argentinian communities were kicked out of the Falklands by British settlers? Or maybe actually read some historical facts on the subject before making such comments?

As for USA help during the 1982 conflict, it was minimal. AIM-9Ls offered all aspect capability however all the SHAR sidewinder air-to-air kills were rear aspect.
The Argentinian airforce was beaten by the FAA in air-to-air due to better tactics and training. I will resist the cheap shot about who trained the Argentine airforce

[baronWastelan]

Originally Posted by trashcanman

As for USA help during the 1982 conflict, it was minimal. AIM-9Ls offered all aspect capability however all the SHAR sidewinder air-to-air kills were rear aspect.
The Argentinian airforce was beaten by the FAA in air-to-air due to better tactics and training. I will resist the cheap shot about who trained the Argentine airforce

Nice, concise forum-friendly analysis, with jingoism imperceptible to the unaided eye! Golly, that "FAA" is a force to be reckoned with!

Here is a version that gives actual detailed information about the events:

http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchr...l02/corum.html

[AndyJWest]

War is stupid. People are stupid...

[baronWastelan]

Bad Argentinian tactics made the Skyhawks and Daggers easy prey for the Harriers, if this pilot is to be believed (skip to 3:30 for the pertinent info):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONu_FneIWYA&t=2m58s

[Siko]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..erm, not really: the territory of Palestine and Israel has been under the control of the Brits up until post WW2, and it's the British Protectorate who helped Jews to go back there, but when they realised there was no way to control it because of the tensions with Palestinians they buggered off, telling everybody to behave.. So whose sovereignty is valid there?



That is not correct. Nobody cared much about the Malvinas up until they were under Spanish control: it's Spain who officially gave the Malvinas to Argentina when they recognised their independence, but in the meantime British colonies had settled in and slowly but systematically kicked out all of the Argentinian settlements. It was an occupation, and as such it was left until someone said "hey guys, there's some oil drilling opportunities there!". This doesn't mean that the British presence is more legitimate than the Argentinian one though. Again, independence from both would be the ideal solution.


With all the technology going on today you don't really need listening posts, and surely not one that far anyway. It was a good strategic presence during the 60s and 70s, but now it's just economic interests.

Sternjaeger, you refer to the Falklands/Malvinas as Malvinas, link to decidedly biased websites and clearly have an agenda. Why not cut the brown stuff and admit what you'd really like?

I love how left wing celebrities and this desperate Argentinian government think that the UK just wants to turn the globe red again and it's 'all about the oil'! Well it wasn't about the oil in 1982 and it wouldn't be about the oil if it came again. It is about the rights of those people, pure and simple.

I agree with one point though-independence would perhaps solve things, but that is a matter for the Islanders themselves....

[Sternjaeger II]

@ Klem: yeah, well I posted that just for the sake of information, because some people here seem to have a pretty much one sided view of things. I also think it omits some important aspects. It still remains that self determination shouldn't apply unless the people who live on the islands are indigenous, and yes, after 200 years one should consider himself indigenous, but it still remains that the settlers were chiefly British. It's a helluva pickle.

@PeterPanPan: I appreciate the difference, but in history books Great Britain and UK are normally used as synonyms, hence my statement.

@ Siko: I'm sorry but I don't think I referred to them exclusively as Malvinas, and the link was given to provide a different take (read "the other side") on the subject, which is the least you can do in trying to give a fair assessment of the situation. As for cutting "the brown stuff" I am frankly surprised on how for some of you questioning the sovereignty of the UK on the Falklands means that you're automatically an Argentinian or a left wing celebrity. It's like you stuck your head underground in the 80s and that's where you kept it so far. Get over it, the Cold War is over, the Government didn't move a finger in favour of the travellers in Dale Park, but feels that the rights of a few thousand people are worth another war? Mmmmh...

Anyway, for the sake of international relations and to conclude an ever-going tension over this topic, both Governments should agree to accept the Falklands/Malvinas as an independent country, and both should give support (on the basis of the claims they made about sovereignty) to the islanders, simples.

..but then again, if you don't see that the real interest for both countries is to claim the place for its oil reserves I'm afraid this conversation isn't going anywhere.

Just to give you an idea: do you know how much it costs to "protect" those 2000 British islanders?

"McSmith reports that the military in the area will cost the UK £61 million ($96 million) in 2012-13, which is expected to increase by £2 million ($3.14 million) each year."
(http://articles.businessinsider.com/...t-uk-falklands)

but no, it's not about the oil at all

[Siko]

Sternjaeger....oil was first discovered by Royal Dutch Shell in 1998.

I am fairly sure that was after 1982 wasn't it?! The British line has been exactly the same since 1982 - it is the Islanders right to self determination. Maybe I will concede one point to you, it is not about the Oil for the British government, but almost certainly is for the Argentinean.

Interested to hear where you're from and why the anti-UK stance...I'm British but of European extraction, what about you?

PS I fail to see the relevance of your comment about the cost of defending the Falklands/Malvinas. £61m pa seems a very reasonable price to pay to defend the Isles against a hostile and aggressive neighbour with a history of armed aggresion against them

[PeterPanPan]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Just to give you an idea: do you know how much it costs to "protect" those 2000 British islanders?

"McSmith reports that the military in the area will cost the UK £61 million ($96 million) in 2012-13, which is expected to increase by £2 million ($3.14 million) each year."
(http://articles.businessinsider.com/...t-uk-falklands)

but no, it's not about the oil at all

That actually seems pretty cheap to me. The total UK defence budget for 2012 is £47 billion*, that's £47,000,000,000 to avoid any confusion. £63,000,000 is just over 1/10th of 1% of the UK's total defence budget. Doesn't seem like bad value to me and does rather suggest it is not exclusively about the oil.

* http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/br...012UKbt_11bc5n

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by trashcanman

Sternjaeger II, please could you explain exactly what Argentinian communities were kicked out of the Falklands by British settlers? Or maybe actually read some historical facts on the subject before making such comments?

As for USA help during the 1982 conflict, it was minimal. AIM-9Ls offered all aspect capability however all the SHAR sidewinder air-to-air kills were rear aspect.
The Argentinian airforce was beaten by the FAA in air-to-air due to better tactics and training. I will resist the cheap shot about who trained the Argentine airforce

Wether the AIM9L shots were predominately rear aspect is neither here nor there what the AIM9L brought to the fight was a previously unknown reliability and Probability of kill if launched in the envelope.... with a true front sector capability if required. All previous generation AIM9's had very average reliability and low PK. The AIM9L brought a quantum leap in reliability and PK to the IR missile world. If the RN had gone in to battle with its AIM9G's (with which they actually sailed from the UK with, the Kill statistics would I suggest have been very different.) Unfortunately for the Argentinians they brought the early generation Shaffir to the fight on their Daggers a missile in the same league as perhaps AIM9D .... but with an even worse Pk. Not all Dagger sorties carried the Shaffir either as the drag penalty ate into an already precarious range problem. In the case of the Mirage they brought the R530 a missile which at the time was more dangerous to the shooter than its intended victim, due to premature detonation at 2.5secs into the flight phase as the influence fuse armed ! Though the various reports indicated that only a few sorties were undertaken with R530 equipped Mirages. Some first generation R550's were also available to the Mirage force. How many R550 equipped Mirage sorties actually took place I have no idea.