What type of help did they receive? Was reading another thread earlier that stated Thatcher called up the French PM threatening to use their nuclear submarine that was around those waters if the french did not give the British the exocet disarm codes...no proof of this of course
Who would have been in trouble exactly?
This. The Argies dropped bombs too low for them to arm IIRC, resulting in many duds. Also, IIRC had Argentina waited a few months, one or both carriers would have been scrapped. However, the Falklands being British territory, Britain had the option to call for US military aid had she needed, under the NATO treaties. No way would we have turned down Britain, so it would have been much more capable (non-VTOL) US aircraft providing support. With our aircraft (especially AWACs) running CAPs, probably no British ships would have been lost.The bit about the Exocets being disabled sounds like BS. Off the top of my head I believe that Argentina had a mere five air-launched Exocets, and they were able to sink at least two ships with them (HMS Sheffield and the transport Atlantic Conveyor.) Doesn't sound like they were disabled to me. I think that the French did provide the UK with some information on how the missile's seeker worked which may have improved the effectiveness of jamming.
Israel doesn't have to travel 8k miles to fight. Britain barely won. I would say if Argentinians had better tacticians the British could've lost.
it wasn't a war of self-defense either.
the falklands were a piece of dirt that was stolen in 19th century British Empire.
very few, if any british citizens lived there. the war was mostly politically motivated, the leaders needed to boost their approval ratings and the conflict seemed like an opportunity.
in the end 1,000 people got to die for absolutely nothing.
another example of british hypocrisy and moral supremacism.
it wasn't a war of self-defense either.
the falklands were a piece of dirt that was stolen in 19th century British Empire.
very few, if any british citizens lived there. the war was mostly politically motivated, the leaders needed to boost their approval ratings and the conflict seemed like an opportunity.
in the end 1,000 people got to die for absolutely nothing.
another example of british hypocrisy and moral supremacism.
However, the Falklands being British territory, Britain had the option to call for US military aid had she needed, under the NATO treaties.
Ah, I did not know that, thanks. I think I recall US aid being offered, though, and Thatcher turning it down. Been awhile since I read much about it though.That's incorrect. Check out Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Any territory that's South of the Tropic of Cancer isn't covered by it.
Ah, I did not know that, thanks. I think I recall US aid being offered, though, and Thatcher turning it down. Been awhile since I read much about it though.
I know that the US provided the British with satellite intelligence, advanced models of the Sidewinder missile and other logistical assistance. As for direct American intervention, no way that was going to happen. For political reason the UK had to stand on their own.
I'd forgotten about the Sidewinders. I do remember there were some pin-stripers who were very irate that we gave any assistance to Britain, as they had been wooing Argentina for some time and the Falklands pretty much blew that effort out of the water.I know that the US provided the British with satellite intelligence, advanced models of the Sidewinder missile and other logistical assistance. As for direct American intervention, no way that was going to happen. For political reason the UK had to stand on their own.
This. The Argies dropped bombs too low for them to arm IIRC, resulting in many duds. Also, IIRC had Argentina waited a few months, one or both carriers would have been scrapped. However, the Falklands being British territory, Britain had the option to call for US military aid had she needed, under the NATO treaties. No way would we have turned down Britain, so it would have been much more capable (non-VTOL) US aircraft providing support. With our aircraft (especially AWACs) running CAPs, probably no British ships would have been lost.
I disagree. Great Britain is our strongest and best ally. Had she needed our help, it would have been forthcoming.The US wouldn't want to risk damaging it's influence in Latin America, so it stayed out(officially at least).
I don't subscribe to your theory.
I disagree. Great Britain is our strongest and best ally. Had she needed our help, it would have been forthcoming.
I'd forgotten about the Sidewinders. I do remember there were some pin-stripers who were very irate that we gave any assistance to Britain, as they had been wooing Argentina for some time and the Falklands pretty much blew that effort out of the water.
One thing the Falklands War did prove was that subsonic VTOLs are great for close support but lousy for CAP.
What type of help did they receive? Was reading another thread earlier that stated Thatcher called up the French PM threatening to use their nuclear submarine that was around those waters if the french did not give the British the exocet disarm codes...no proof of this of course
See War in Iraq.Please.
GB is impotent and its leadership is far from pro-American. They rarely vote alongside the US in the UN and have become one of the largest protectors America's enemies - and by that I mean the Islamists. Look at their universities.
Japan likes America more than Great Britain. Israel likes American more than Great Britain.
GB has bought into the European imperialism narrative and will never back up the USA when it is in need.
Agreed. There were numerous lessons, including the value of good light armor (which the USA STILL doesn't have), I was just pointing out one.The Exocet proved it's value and Aluminium Ship Hulls were showed to be very vulnerable.
That's what I recall from the time.
See War in Iraq.
See War in Afghanistan.
)See total lack of Japanese (due to the Constitution that we wrote for them
and Israeli combat troops.
Then project that back to every conflict the USA has entered since the Spanish-American War. If we've had an ally, it's been Great Britain and/or other Commonwealth nations* (especially Australia and New Zealand.) And they are far from impotent, they have an excellent military.
*The Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, and Ethiopia have been good military friends as well.
I disagree. Great Britain is our strongest and best ally. Had she needed our help, it would have been forthcoming.
Not anymore. You forget that Great Britain is the country who tortured our President's family. The status of the relationship has been downgraded by Obama.
So the rights of the UK citizens living there mean nothing?The United States should support Argentina against the UK here. There is no point in supporting european colonialist tendencies. The UK should have no rights to the Falkland Islands and if they don't give them up, then I would actually prefer that the US bomb the crap out of the UK and then take over London.