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

[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

[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.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

................
here's a read for you
http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal...s/homeing.html
.......................

An interesting read which IMHO seems determined to ignore the UN resolution on de-colonisation or bend it to its own ends. That's not meant to be inflamatory, its just my take on that I read on that website.

The entire question of Argentinian ownership of the Falklands is based on the initial Spanish siezure of the Islands during their colonisation of that part of the world and Argentina's succession of Spanish rights. The 1960 UN Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples” was intended to remove such colonisation in favour of the interests and wishes of the peoples living in those colonies. Britain has (had already) followed that principle in the de-colonisation of its 'Empire'.

Argentina, still claiming 'ownership' as Spain's successor, does not seem inclined to follow that principle arguing that it contravenes the protections of the UN resolution which states “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.

However it is hard to argue that the Islands form part of " the territorial integrity " of Argentina when they are beyond the territorial waters of the Argentinian coast, i.e. they are not a contiguous part of the Argentinian mainland. (Territorial Water is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline, usually the mean low-water mark, of a coastal state.) The Islands therefore always formed, at best, a colony of Argentina or Britain. Also, with virtually no Argentinian presence on the island and an overwhelming presence of people preferring to be regarded as 'British' or at least linked to Britain rather than Argentina, it can't be argued that "national unity" with or of Argentina is disrupted.

It still comes down to the choice of the people living there.

[PeterPanPan]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

... you can refer to a country with its geographical name: Great Britain, United Kingdom, same difference ...

Small point of order, but GB and UK are not the same. Let me explain:

Great Britain is EITHER a geographical description of an island OR a political description of the combination of territories known as England, Scotland and Wales.

United Kingdom is actually short for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and is a political description of a whole nation.

[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

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by 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.

In the 80s it was about having a strategic position (like Gibraltar), nowadays the interests are mutating into economics one, especially after they found out more oil than what they found in the North Sea, and probably even more..

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

I'm an European living and working in the UK, and frankly I don't get why it's perceived as an anti-UK stance only. I'm against both of the parties claiming their sovereignty.

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

you obviously have a weird concept of "a very reasonably price to pay" to defend 2000 people..

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by PeterPanPan

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

are you even serious?!

let's do some rough maths: 47bln for 62mln inhabitants means that yearly Defence cost per citizen in the United Kingdom is some £750.

61mln for 3000 people is a staggering £20,000 per head!