I think it is smart. So far, the Argentinian leaders seem to be very politically savvy. They are making the Malvinas too expensive and risky for the UK to occupy.
They are making the Malvinas too expensive and risky for the UK to occupy.
Argentina lashed out at Britain on Friday in an increasingly tense territorial dispute over the Falkland Islands, accusing Britain of deploying a nuclear-armed submarine to the South Atlantic and threatening the region’s stability.
Argentina’s foreign minister, Héctor Timerman, said at the United Nations that the deployment would violate the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, and to which both Britain and Argentina are signatories.
Evidence?
It seems that if the air link to the Malvinas is cut, the Argentinians may be attempting to make the Malvinas simply too expensive for the British to maintain considering the general decrepit and crumbling state of the UK state.
Argentina accused of plotting Falklands blockade
Be careful with your tenses. Here you said they "ARE" making it too expensive, which you have no evidence of. Earlier you said they're trying, which may be true.
They ARE making it too expensive as well.
It seems that the suspected UK deployment of a nuclear submarine to the South Atlantic is contrary to the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean). Both the UK and Argentina are signatories.
Argentina Says Britain Is Raising Tensions
Only violates the treaty if Argentina can prove the submarine is armed with nuclear weapons. Nuclear power alone does not constitute a nuclear weapon.
What is your evidence that they ARE making it too expensive? And not just that they are making it MORE expensive, but TOO expensive?
Only violates the treaty if Argentina can prove the submarine is armed with nuclear weapons. Nuclear power alone does not constitute a nuclear weapon.
The state of UK relations with Latin American countries, effect on the US relationship, costs associated with further militarization while the UK is suffering a severe financial crisis, etc. All the things I've been posting about throughout this thread.
It seems that you think "too expensive" means "not possible." However, people purchase things that are too expensive for them all the time. See the housing crisis for examples.
What would it take for someone to prove to you that it's not "too" expensive?
Those islands were apparently uninhabited when settled by British settlers in the 1850's. Argentina claim otherwise.
Either way the current inhabitants all want to remain British.
They have a few of them at least and they have a pretty decent submarine fleet. Like I said they will have two new Carriers by about 2020. Much improved over their old ones.
But in the meantime they seriously lack the ability to project naval power.
The Malvinas are not in the middle of nowhere. They're not even 300 miles away from Argentina.
The UK could barely even project force in Libya, they would probably have a much more difficult time with the Malvinas now than they did in the 80s. I'm not sure if Argentina would be able to take back their territory as of yet, but it will probably be inevitable.
You're an idiot. A complete waste of space, and someone should visit violence on you in an attempt to either fix you, or prevent you from spewing nonsense like this into this Royal forum. Like, if Prince Harry broke every one of your fingers with a ball-peen hammer while God Save the Queen blared from loudspeakers, I think that would be uh, smashing.
I'm not sure there's much evidence of which natives went there. Their interests would be superseded by the fact that they had departed and the fact that British people are currently living there.
Clearly, their sovereignty and discovery rights are not part of that. Argentina crapped on those rights and doesn't get to benefit of them.
Your reasoning is circular. The only reason it's not an issue between two nations is the US completely took over America. Are you saying that if the UK invaded all of Argentina there would be no territorial dispute? The point is that it's all hand-waving. In the case of the US, you hand-wave away colonial crimes. In the case of the UK, you cry about an island that only has British residents.
Wow you're making geographical proximity and continental shelf contiguity two separate categories? No if you take away native first discovery you only have geographical proximity, which doesn't explain most of the borders in this world.
I'm not sure. I suppose it depends on the quality and comprehensiveness of any report they provide.
This is the only legitimate reason for the British to maintain control of the islands. Speaking as a Brit by the way - the 'we found it first' argument is bullshit. If a bunch of Argentinians move there (and why not if it's so great you'd send men to die for it), over time start to outnumber the British/Falkland islanders, then they could have a vote vote and declare independence. Simple. Britain would not have a problem with that I'm sure.
Rabid/Worms/Wanker... it disgusts me to reply to one of your posts... but I would like to point out we did manage to project force into Libya at fairly short notice. British jets hit targets pointed out by British special forces working with the rebels. This was a just war if such a thing exists.
I don't see how native interests would be superseded by the interests that originate from violent aggression.
Moreover, as I've already stated, the Malvinas could be transferred to a south american native body that can then deal with it as they desire.
How is it hypocritical?Your reasoning is illogical and also hypocritical.
Did you get your countries mixed up? I agree it would be wrong for Argentina to invade the UK island at this point.Again: the issue with Argentina invading a UK island and establishing a colony is still relevant. It could just be hand waved away after 100-200 years. If you want to hand wave away everything, then you condone violent aggression.
Why don't you just multiply the number of grounds you think Argentina has. You can say they have a claim based on distance in kilometers, distance in miles, distance in leagues, etc. Does that sound reasonable to you?Of course they are.
No, it really doesn't. It comes down to possession (a common doctrine in civil law) and the wishes of the inhabitants and the lack of ANY legitimate competing claims.Essentially, your position comes down to: Do whatever you want, then just cry and hand wave everything away and then say 'no more hand waving because I say so.'
Do you think it's reasonable that all it takes is a couple articles (that don't say it's TOO expensive) and a simple proclamation from yourself for you to believe that a minor projection of force for one of the world's strongest navies is TOO expensive. But for someone to prove you wrong they'd have to have some high-quality and comprehensive report?
As Atheus just said, the UK just projected its force in North Africa and it's still a developed country.
I was joining a task force that would eventually number 111 ships. Today - after spending cuts that have seen defence budgets slashed from 5 to 2.5 per cent of GDP - the once formidable Royal Navy now numbers barely 40 major ships and submarines.
...
If the Royal Naval fleet has shrunk spectacularly since 1982 - it had 55 frigates and destroyers then; today it has 24 - then the British merchant fleet has all but disappeared. Who knows where we'd get the ships to support a war in the South Atlantic from now.
...
In 1982, we had 17 destroyers and sent eight to the Falklands. Now we have only seven - and many of them are engaged in policing waters elsewhere.
I'm not the one making the claim. Have you ever heard of the concept of falsifiability? If your factual belief can't be proven wrong it's pretty much hogwash.Please feel free to provide anything otherwise.
What interests? The indigenous people left. It's not as if they are actually making claims. You're just using them for your bizarro theories. The reality is they are not making any claims on the Falklands, which makes sense since they left long ago. Even Argentina doesn't rely on your native exploration ideas.
And that's great if you think it could be transferred to an indigenous body, that doesn't change the fact that Argentina has no legitimate claim.
How is it hypocritical?
Did you get your countries mixed up? I agree it would be wrong for Argentina to invade the UK island at this point.
Why don't you just multiply the number of grounds you think Argentina has. You can say they have a claim based on distance in kilometers, distance in miles, distance in leagues, etc. Does that sound reasonable to you?
No, it really doesn't. It comes down to possession (a common doctrine in civil law) and the wishes of the inhabitants and the lack of ANY legitimate competing claims.
It seems that the suspected UK deployment of a nuclear submarine to the South Atlantic is contrary to the Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean). Both the UK and Argentina are signatories.
Argentina Says Britain Is Raising Tensions
Downing Street might disagree on the necessity of disclosing State Secrets and violating military security protocols just to ease your mind as to whether Argentina is apt to suffer serious consequences from renewed aggression against the Falklands....The UK should disclose the location of all nuclear-armed submarines...
Does your home lack mirrors?...To be frank, I have not seen someone be this hypocritical in quite some time.
The articles I've been reading state that it's nuclear-armed.
The UK should disclose the location of all nuclear-armed submarines. International observers (not Argentinian) should be given full access to UK resources that track or maintain their nuclear submarine fleet to verify that they are in compliance during this crisis.