Falklands

[SteveThaiBinh]

*You yanks ratted us out to the bloody Argentines in that one, but don't worry I'm sure that's aprt of the special relationship or something.

They did? I thought we only won because they helped us...

[Walsingham]

I thought now might be a fun time to discuss the Falklands war, partly because of a comment by SteveThaiBinh which I will post below, and partly because of the recent discoveries of oil nearby and the renewed sabre rattling by the Argentines.

 

It is important to know that of the five factual bets I've ever made about the Falklands war I've only won one.

[Walsingham]

*You yanks ratted us out to the bloody Argentines in that one, but don't worry I'm sure that's aprt of the special relationship or something.

They did? I thought we only won because they helped us...

 

Helped us? What?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Use of satellites, that sort of thing. I don't remember in detail, which is why I was asking. I just remember that it was the received wisdom in my family (a navy family - my father served in the Falklands, albeit after the actual conflict) that successive governments had allowed the armed forces to decline, and to become dependent on the US, to such an extent that the whole operation would have been impossible had the US not secretly given its support. I do remember that the French helped too with the codes to the Exocet missiles and suchlike, something that's generally forgotten in these it's-so-cool-to-hate-the-French days.

[Walsingham]

http://yorkshire-ranter.blogspot.com/2007/...d-european.html

 

Assuming we can trust someone called 'The Yorkshire Ranter' this article would suggest that each of the points you mention were counter-factual. We reeceived schizophrenic political support, the use of Ascension was moot, as was the provision of AIM-9L sidewinders, and we never got use of the satellites.

 

I'm not anti-French, but I might point out that given this was an attack on a NATO member the French could have done a lot more. Presumably they were hoping to get big arms sales off the back of any war.

[Gorth]

Perhaps somebody in Paris were rubbing their hands together gleefully at the thought of Royal Navy ships finally being brought down by French arms... mumbling something "Abukir", "Jean Bart" etc. in the process

 

While war is never a pleasant affair, it was one the few modern wars I can remember being "interesting" in that was actually fought between military forces as opposed to stomping on regional dictators and their personal bodyguard/bully boys. Anybody know what the civilian casualties were, compared to military casualties?

Edited May 30, 2007 by Gorth

[metadigital]

I read an article in the Sunday Times a few years ago (still have it here, somewhere) about how Margaret Thatcher called up the French President and demanded the deactivation codes for the French arms sold to the Argentines ... otherwise she would use nuclear weapons. :D

[Hiro Protagonist]

Anybody know what the civilian casualties were, compared to military casualties?

 

If Wikipedia is any guide to go by...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Casualties

 

In total 907 were killed during the 74 days of the conflict, Argentina - 649 and United Kingdom - 258. There were also 1,188 Argentine and 777 British casualties in addition to the war dead

Edited May 30, 2007 by Hiro Protagonist

[Gfted1]

IIRC, a painful lesson was learned in naval warfare regarding the use of aluminum to build the superstructures of ships. A British warship was hit by an Exocet and the resultant fire proceded to melt large aluminum portions.

[Farbautisonn]

Ofcourse the fact that Prince Andrew flew a helicopter in the falklands helped alot...

 

-Farb

[Sand]

The Brits need the Falklands! For strategic sheep purposes.

[Walsingham]

Thanks for grabbing those figures, Hiro. Interesting to note that those are more than double our casualties for Iraq and Afghanistan combined so far.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The Brits need the Falklands! For strategic sheep purposes.

While we'll never be a world superpower like New Zealand, we do maintain our own independent sheep deterrent.

Thanks for grabbing those figures, Hiro. Interesting to note that those are more than double our casualties for Iraq and Afghanistan combined so far.

Very interesting indeed. We seem to be much less tolerant of casualties now. I suspect it's a combination of three things - perhaps times have changed, and people are generally less willing to accept casualties, plus the Falklands Conflict took place over a shorter period of time and had a definite end which people could see coming even before it happened, and finally because public support for the war was so much stronger in that case.

 

On the whole matter of US aid in the conflict, I'm not sure I do accept the word of that source, but he says that the origin of the 'myth' was Thatcher and the conservative establishment and I'm more than a little disturbed that I might have been misled by that as well. I'll ask my father to restate his position next time I talk to him.

[Farbautisonn]

The hard currency of war in this century will be human life. At least in the west. In the third world they are still stuck in the last century, (some in the last millenia) and lives matters not as much there in public opinion. We don't commit as many troops and we don't let troops occupy areas as we used to. We don't accept major loss of life (ours at least) and we are still weary of using excessive force. We are not just in the business of winning wars. We are also in the business of winning the peace. Winning hearts and minds as it were.

 

The face of war changed. Most conflicts, even major ones, will not between major nation states such as the US, China or Russia. Russia will be busy with its border states, China with their Moslem north west (where they have been busy for years) and the US in the middle east. Strictly speaking you don't need to be there but the UN and Europe still have a fetish for waving worthless papers as Chamberlain did, so untill the next major terror attack in Europe or next 9/11 you're stuck with the part.

 

The Joker will be A/B/C WMD's. superterror and smaller states. For instance: Had North Korea not been strategic sphere of interest and bordering to China, the nation would be a smoking pile of rubble by now. Iran is being held above water by the Russian return to old world politics and rethorics, and the Chinese reluctance to give anything away without getting something for it. Cuba will be democratic inside 5 years of Castro's death, leaving Chavez to build a workers paradise, pissing down the drain the economy of his nation whilst doing it. Africa will remain the armpit of the world, a money zink, and the reason for indignation for the next generation of popstars to bitch and moan about. Enjoy.

 

The above is oversimplyfied, rant'ish and just my opinion ofcourse.

 

-Farb

[Gorgon]

I feel compelled to ask what 'A go-go' means.

[Farbautisonn]

Argentine women doing a tango with tassls.

 

-Farb

[Walsingham]

I feel compelled to ask what 'A go-go' means.

 

You've never heard of a 'go-go' bar? And they say kids these days are a less innocent generation!

 

(btw, for zulu-speakers, go-go is not the same as gogo)

 

Steve, I do think it is interesting since with the best will in the world, while the Falklands was an attack on sovereign territory it would be hard to desribe it as being of more strategic significance to the UK than Iraq.

 

What some of you new to the conflict may not know is that the UK was in the process of slowly transferring sovereignty to Argentina when the junta decided to invade. Islanders were being encouraged to shop in Argentina and send their children there for schooling. We had also removed our naval presence. We were going to give it to them gratis.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

BAH, We should keep it! End of, if argentina wants it we'll send 'em home again with a bloody nose.

[Gfted1]

(btw, for zulu-speakers, go-go is not the same as gogo)

 

 

Im glad you cleared that up, I was about to fly off the handle.

[Walsingham]

BAH, We should keep it! End of, if argentina wants it we'll send 'em home again with a bloody nose.

 

Using the secret divisions we have hidden in the Wales? We've got about fifteen loggies and a regimental goat on standby as strategic reserve.

[metadigital]

Shhh! Don't let everyone hear you divulge confidential strategic intelligence!

[Gorgon]

yes well then, what does the Falklands have to do with titty-bars ?

Edited May 31, 2007 by Gorgon

[metadigital]

There is a shedload of squid to fish there, apart from the strategic value of a port in the South Atlantic.

[Walsingham]

Squid? Squid are delicious!

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

BAH, We should keep it! End of, if argentina wants it we'll send 'em home again with a bloody nose.

 

Using the secret divisions we have hidden in the Wales? We've got about fifteen loggies and a regimental goat on standby as strategic reserve.

 

You must fear the regimental goat!