UK's naval presence in falklands upped.

[coatsy]

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... lands.html


not a great time to be potentially in another conflict with our forces stretched as it is.

[vanitybinge]

There are now more than 1,000 Armed Forces personnel in the region, plus four Eurofighter Typhoons, a Hercules transport plane, a Vickers VC10 refuelling aircraft and two Sea King helicopters.

Referring to the Navy's manoeuvring, the source said: "It has been done very quietly so as not to look too provocative.

"But the Argentines are in no doubt that we are there now."

I think my eyes must be crossed.

[KneelandBobDylan]

The sheep on the islands must be getting mouthy again.

[lerxstcat]

60 bilion barrels of oil? You bet the British Navy will fight for that!

Out of curiousity though, besides Iraq and Afghanistain, where are Britain's forces stretched thinly? My understanding is that you're contributing a fraction of what we are in those countries. Not that it isn't appreciated, but you don't have 100,000 troops committed, so how small IS the British military now, and where ARE they stationed that they couldn't take on the Argentines if need be?

[coatsy]

60 bilion barrels of oil? You bet the British Navy will fight for that!

Out of curiousity though, besides Iraq and Afghanistain, where are Britain's forces stretched thinly? My understanding is that you're contributing a fraction of what we are in those countries. Not that it isn't appreciated, but you don't have 100,000 troops committed, so how small IS the British military now, and where ARE they stationed that they couldn't take on the Argentines if need be?

the british army is involved in peacekeeping worldwide eg africa. we also have a presence in cyprus among other places. our army isn't that large. why should we have huge numbers in iraq/afghanistan? it not our war.

[lerxstcat]

60 bilion barrels of oil? You bet the British Navy will fight for that!

Out of curiousity though, besides Iraq and Afghanistain, where are Britain's forces stretched thinly? My understanding is that you're contributing a fraction of what we are in those countries. Not that it isn't appreciated, but you don't have 100,000 troops committed, so how small IS the British military now, and where ARE they stationed that they couldn't take on the Argentines if need be?

the british army is involved in peacekeeping worldwide eg africa. we also have a presence in cyprus among other places. our army isn't that large. why should we have huge numbers in iraq/afghanistan? it not our war.

I didn't say you should, just asking why you don't think you could take on the Argentines over the Falklands again. It seems you ought to have enough held in reserve to defend actual British-claimed territory.

Of course in the previous Falklands conflict the US gave you lots of logistical support - refueling and resupplying yoiur task force halfway there. If you question whether the Obama Administration would help you against Argentina this time, you might have a valid worry.

Not that I'm saying he wouldn't do so, ultimately, but if he took as long to decide as he did over the Afghan surge, your war might already be over in the Argentines' favor. Dunno if 4 warships is enough 8,000 miles from reinforcements. Then again, these were the same concerns back in the day. And then the Argentines had actually occupied the islands.

[coatsy]

60 bilion barrels of oil? You bet the British Navy will fight for that!

Out of curiousity though, besides Iraq and Afghanistain, where are Britain's forces stretched thinly? My understanding is that you're contributing a fraction of what we are in those countries. Not that it isn't appreciated, but you don't have 100,000 troops committed, so how small IS the British military now, and where ARE they stationed that they couldn't take on the Argentines if need be?

the british army is involved in peacekeeping worldwide eg africa. we also have a presence in cyprus among other places. our army isn't that large. why should we have huge numbers in iraq/afghanistan? it not our war.

I didn't say you should, just asking why you don't think you could take on the Argentines over the Falklands again. It seems you ought to have enough held in reserve to defend actual British-claimed territory.

Of course in the previous Falklands conflict the US gave you lots of logistical support - refueling and resupplying yoiur task force halfway there. If you question whether the Obama Administration would help you against Argentina this time, you might have a valid worry.

Not that I'm saying he wouldn't do so, ultimately, but if he took as long to decide as he did over the Afghan surge, your war might already be over in the Argentines' favor. Dunno if 4 warships is enough 8,000 miles from reinforcements. Then again, these were the same concerns back in the day. And then the Argentines had actually occupied the islands.

i don't think anybody this side of the atlantic has given the obama factor any thought. it's unlikely the argentines would attack the islands again. the did it in 1982 as the ruling military junta were losing their grip on power, argentina is a democracy now. as i said earlier our military size has decreased over the years.

[lerxstcat]

i don't think anybody this side of the atlantic has given the obama factor any thought. it's unlikely the argentines would attack the islands again. the did it in 1982 as the ruling military junta were losing their grip on power, argentina is a democracy now. as i said earlier our military size has decreased over the years.

Well the article you linked, as well as your government, seem to think there's some chance of a conflict. Why send the warships otherwise, especially if, as you say, the military has been so decreased?

Argentina DOES still claim the islands - and if Britain were not such a staunch all of the US, we would probably support Argentina's claim in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine.

[coatsy]

i don't think anybody this side of the atlantic has given the obama factor any thought. it's unlikely the argentines would attack the islands again. the did it in 1982 as the ruling military junta were losing their grip on power, argentina is a democracy now. as i said earlier our military size has decreased over the years.

Well the article you linked, as well as your government, seem to think there's some chance of a conflict. Why send the warships otherwise, especially if, as you say, the military has been so decreased?

Argentina DOES still claim the islands - and if Britain were not such a staunch all of the US, we would probably support Argentina's claim in accordance with the Monroe Doctrine.

we've sent more warships there to 'give them the message'. merely posturing from both sides.

[MickeyG]

I believe the people on the Falklands support British rule, so I don't know why the US would consider supporting Argentine rule.

[vanitybinge]

I believe the people on the Falklands support British rule, so I don't know why the US would consider supporting Argentine rule.

I think I speak for my country when I say we'll support whatever side the money is on.

[lerxstcat]

I believe the people on the Falklands support British rule, so I don't know why the US would consider supporting Argentine rule.

Because of the Monroe Doctrine; look it up. It basically said if european powers tried to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, the US would intervene against the colonizers. It has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy ever since.

It was promulgated in 1823 and the British established their prescence in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833.

As an example, there are a number of uninhabited islands off the coast of Alaska all the way from the southern area to the Aleutians. If Russia decided to plant a colony there, then said "The residents are for Russian rule", do you think we would give up our claim or that we wouldn't eliminate that colony?

The only difference here is that Argentina didn't have the power to do that against Britain, backed by the US.

So our backing Britain in this case goes against a major element of our foreign policy. Not that I see it changing, ever, because Britain IS our closest ally. But if we wanted to, the Monroe Doctrine would be the reason cited, I'm sure.

[MickeyG]

I believe the people on the Falklands support British rule, so I don't know why the US would consider supporting Argentine rule.

Because of the Monroe Doctrine; look it up. It basically said if european powers tried to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, the US would intervene against the colonizers. It has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy ever since.

It was promulgated in 1823 and the British established their prescence in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833.

As an example, there are a number of uninhabited islands off the coast of Alaska all the way from the southern area to the Aleutians. If Russia decided to plant a colony there, then said "The residents are for Russian rule", do you think we would give up our claim or that we wouldn't eliminate that colony?

The only difference here is that Argentina didn't have the power to do that against Britain, backed by the US.

So our backing Britain in this case goes against a major element of our foreign policy. Not that I see it changing, ever, because Britain IS our closest ally. But if we wanted to, the Monroe Doctrine would be the reason cited, I'm sure.

I hear ya, but seeing as all that time has past since the Doctrine was written, and since Britain took the Falklands it would look a little bit suspect if suddenly the US decided to use the Doctrine against Britain in this situation.

BTW, I just did some research on this Doctrine and it seems that in it's early years Britain actually backed it and enforced it with the Royal Navy as the US had a weak Navy at the time. From that I can only assume the Doctrine wasn't aimed at Britain at all, but more those on mainland Europe. This section from wiki-pedia is interesting:

"They (Latin American States) knew that the President of the United States wielded very little power at the time, particularly without the backing of the British forces. Furthermore, they figured that the Monroe Doctrine was powerless if it stood alone against the Triple Alliance[9]. While they appreciated and praised their support in the north, they knew that their future of independence was in the hands of the powerful Great Britain. In 1826, Bolivar called upon his Congress of Panama to host the first “Pan-American” meeting. In the eyes of Bolivar and his men, the Monroe Doctrine was to become nothing more than a tool of national policy. According to Crow, “It was not meant to be, and was never intended to be a charter for concerted hemispheric action”[9].

During the first half of the nineteenth century, it was Great Britain’s preoccupation with exerting its power on the rest of the world that led it to decide to support the Monroe Doctrine. At the time, South America as a whole constituted a much larger market for British goods than the United States. Crow argues that it was ultimately the support of Great Britain, not the Monroe Doctrine, which protected the sovereignty of Latin America’s newly independent nations[9]."

Also, your argument about Russia possibly inhabiting some islands off Alaska is a little different than Britain owning the Falklands and having a colony there since 1833. For one, the Falklands are no threat to the US, unlike those islands you mention. Also, many generations of "British Falklanders" have lived down there, many have probably never visited Britain but still feel a connection to the country. They pretty much govern themselves anyway. Would they enjoy the same freedom and protection under an Argie government?

[lerxstcat]

I believe the people on the Falklands support British rule, so I don't know why the US would consider supporting Argentine rule.

Because of the Monroe Doctrine; look it up. It basically said if european powers tried to establish new colonies in the Western Hemisphere, the US would intervene against the colonizers. It has been a cornerstone of US foreign policy ever since.

It was promulgated in 1823 and the British established their prescence in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833.

As an example, there are a number of uninhabited islands off the coast of Alaska all the way from the southern area to the Aleutians. If Russia decided to plant a colony there, then said "The residents are for Russian rule", do you think we would give up our claim or that we wouldn't eliminate that colony?

The only difference here is that Argentina didn't have the power to do that against Britain, backed by the US.

So our backing Britain in this case goes against a major element of our foreign policy. Not that I see it changing, ever, because Britain IS our closest ally. But if we wanted to, the Monroe Doctrine would be the reason cited, I'm sure.

I hear ya, but seeing as all that time has past since the Doctrine was written, and since Britain took the Falklands it would look a little bit suspect if suddenly the US decided to use the Doctrine against Britain in this situation.

BTW, I just did some research on this Doctrine and it seems that in it's early years Britain actually backed it and enforced it with the Royal Navy as the US had a weak Navy at the time. From that I can only assume the Doctrine wasn't aimed at Britain at all, but more those on mainland Europe. This section from wiki-pedia is interesting:

"They (Latin American States) knew that the President of the United States wielded very little power at the time, particularly without the backing of the British forces. Furthermore, they figured that the Monroe Doctrine was powerless if it stood alone against the Triple Alliance[9]. While they appreciated and praised their support in the north, they knew that their future of independence was in the hands of the powerful Great Britain. In 1826, Bolivar called upon his Congress of Panama to host the first “Pan-American” meeting. In the eyes of Bolivar and his men, the Monroe Doctrine was to become nothing more than a tool of national policy. According to Crow, “It was not meant to be, and was never intended to be a charter for concerted hemispheric action”[9].

During the first half of the nineteenth century, it was Great Britain’s preoccupation with exerting its power on the rest of the world that led it to decide to support the Monroe Doctrine. At the time, South America as a whole constituted a much larger market for British goods than the United States. Crow argues that it was ultimately the support of Great Britain, not the Monroe Doctrine, which protected the sovereignty of Latin America’s newly independent nations[9]."

Also, your argument about Russia possibly inhabiting some islands off Alaska is a little different than Britain owning the Falklands and having a colony there since 1833. For one, the Falklands are no threat to the US, unlike those islands you mention. Also, many generations of "British Falklanders" have lived down there, many have probably never visited Britain but still feel a connection to the country. They pretty much govern themselves anyway. Would they enjoy the same freedom and protection under an Argie government?

Good points; yes, British power and interests in the 1800s were much more important that American influence. Britain still had significant holding in the Western Hemisphere including Canada, and the Monroe Doctrine specifically said that colonies already in place were okay. It was against NEW colonization.

Since most of the remaining New World colonies were either Spanish or French - both rivals if not enemies of Britain - then it was in Britain's interest to support the Latin American independence movements, both as new markets and to weaken Spain.

The Russia comparison is not exactly the same, but it's just an example that there was a preexisting claim to those islands by Argentina before Britain claimed them, and in fact the British Navy wiped out the Argentine settlement on one of the main islands before putting British settlers ashore.
Of course it was mostly a penal colony for Argentina at the time, so besides national pride probably no tears were shed over convicts killed.

I doubt seriously the US would ever question British sovereignty of the Falklands - but if for any reason we WERE to do so, the pretext would probably cite the Monroe Doctrine as longstanding policy. It's taught in US schools as the CURRENT policy of the US government, or was when I was in high school and college.

[RichHolt]

Oh Shit...







Well i guess this means an SBS recce team has infiltrated Argentinia's borders, and a select group of RMs have been sent to protect residents.
There will be a submarine presence around the islands, and could easily be SBS recce teams recceing the beaches and landing heads on the islands so as to find the best way of defence. Warfare has developed majorly since 1982.
Let's not forget, there is a permanant 80-man RM detatchment there, just in case the shit really hits the fan.

Basically, we're ready for war. And this could start a war easily - the 82 conflict was only started cos a team of Argentine scientists put an Argentine flag up on UK soil, before refusing to take it down. Soon their military deployed, and we went in.