Challenge: A French "Falklands War" in the late twentieth century

[Max Sinister]

Maybe it could work if the French keep a colony that became independent ITTL. Maybe Pondicherry and the other bits in India. (Nehru had Goa and the other Portuguese cities annexed, which was a slap into the face for Portuguese imperialists.)

 

[L'Empereur]

In your opinion, if there was a Falklands-style situation today, which would be in a better position to handle it : France or Britain ?

As far as I can see, it would be about equivalent.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

In your opinion, if there was a Falklands-style situation today, which would be in a better position to handle it : France or Britain ?

Depends.

Without any external assistance:

If they had a strong air force, the Marine Nationale. (Because of the carrier and the Rafale, since the RN retired its Sea Harriers; before that, only problems when fighting a fairly large and modern air threat.)

If they had a strong submarine and surface fleet, the Royal Navy. (Not saying the French couldn't prevail, just the RN is better equipped for it and more experienced.)

Both have near-enough the same number of decent first-rate ships and amphibious craft. The French win on aviation, for the time being, but the UK wins on having far better and more capable submarines and (overall) better equipped warships.

 

[Cavendish]

Greenpeace invites many senior politicians school students to visit their ship, the Rainbow Warrior on July 10th 1985, when it visits Auckland.

The French Secret service tries to abort the planned bombing of the ship, but the message doesn't get through to their agents in time. The Rainbow Warrior is sunk. The school students mostly die. Many politicians die.

A new more left-wing government takes over in New Zealand, with most of the more moderate politicians dead, and the rest traumitized by seeing so many kids die in front of their eyes.

The New Zealand population is shocked by the tragedy, and the media whips up their anger, demanding a stop to French "aggression" (the bombing of Rainbow Warrior and French nuclear tests in French Polynesia).

Mitterand says "Non!"

New Zealanders boycott French goods

In retaliation, the French demand (and get) an EU import ban on New Zealand lamb and kiwi fruit. Britain reluctantly goes along with the ban, as quid pro quo for French support in the 1982 Falklands War.

The temperature keeps rising between France/New Zealand.

Diplomatic relations are virtually broken off.

The French increase the rate of nuclear tests in French Polynesia, to spite New Zealand...

The New Zealand is economy is failing, the population is angry, the government has no where to go...

...until somebody gets the bright idea to invade French Polynesia!

I don't see the Frnech blowing up politicians and children on the boat, their original intention was to damage the boat, and the wanted no casaulties at all. As for the government becoming more left wing, it could actually become more right wing, with Labour MPs such as Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble likely to not go to such an event.

Perhaps after such an inncident the RNZN could send frigates into mouraroa like they did in 1973, to stop the explosions from occuring. The French could misjudge their location (okay unlikely considering modern equipment) or perhaps fire a couple of "warning" shots that fail to miss nothing and hit a boat or two.
Then again, its unlikely that this would lead to anything either...

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

That could work. For instance, if France encouraged Quebec for its sovereignist bid (like Ségolène Royal recently), sparking some sort of revolt and big political trouble inside Canada. Ottawa might then decide to occupy Saint Pierre et Miquelon, as a retaliation.

Actually, there was already so (joking) talk of doing just that:

Free St. Pierre and Miquelon!

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

and Canada is, well... CANADA for Christ's Sake!

Yeah, but it would make a great Story.

I think it's worth reposting in ASB.

 

[SunilTanna]

I don't see the Frnech blowing up politicians and children on the boat, their original intention was to damage the boat, and the wanted no casaulties at all.

I'm positing it is an accident - it goes wrong. They didn't deliberately kill the 1 (?) Greenpeace guy, but nevertheless they did.

Actually given I posted a part two, let me revise the part 1, to drop the government going more left wing and no politicans (just school kids) killed.

Then we get an anti-French nationalist upsurge in NZ, the NZ/French war of words, and the drunken Fred Smith civilian invasion of French Polynesia. Just to make it a bit more fun, let's make Fred Smith an ex-All Black, and he happens to get interviewed on TV, on his drunk night in the pub, and that's where he proposes that every decent NZ with a boat ought to join him in an invasion of French Polynesia.

 

[L'Empereur]

Both have near-enough the same number of decent first-rate ships and amphibious craft. The French win on aviation, for the time being, but the UK wins on having far better and more capable submarines and (overall) better equipped warships.

Interesting, thanks.

And to extrapolate slightly : would France and Britain combined have the capacity to launch a major "projected" operation, say like the US can ?

Perhaps after such an inncident the RNZN could send frigates into mouraroa like they did in 1973, to stop the explosions from occuring. The French could misjudge their location (okay unlikely considering modern equipment) or perhaps fire a couple of "warning" shots that fail to miss nothing and hit a boat or two.
Then again, its unlikely that this would lead to anything either...

Or we could just test some mini-nuke on the NZ frigates, for "live target practice", and then say : "oops, sorry, but what the f**** were you guys doing here ???"

Then we get an anti-French nationalist upsurge in NZ, the NZ/French war of words, and the drunken Fred Smith civilian invasion of French Polynesia. Just to make it a bit more fun, let's make Fred Smith an ex-All Black, and he happens to get interviewed on TV, on his drunk night in the pub, and that's where he proposes that every decent NZ with a boat ought to join him in an invasion of French Polynesia.

Then if he's an All-Black, we offer him a Gold contract to Toulouse or Paris Rugby team, and free booze during all his stay in France to defuse the whole thing... Who coud say no to that...?

Actually, there was already so (joking) talk of doing just that:
Free St. Pierre and Miquelon!

That's a funny article... And the comparison between Royal and de Gaulle is pretty clever. Although it's hard to take seriously somebody named "Rex" (it sounds too much like a german shepherd... )

That whole incident with Royal was unbelievable. If a foreign leader had said 1/10th of that about a French region, we would probably have nuked them !


Another interesting question (or so I hope...) : if Canada did occuppy St Pierre et Miquelon (like Argentina with the Falklands/Malouines), for whatever reason, would the French military have any shot at taking it back, or is there just no way ? (no nukes, no external assistance or diplomatic pressure)

 

[Wendell]

Interesting, thanks.

Another interesting question (or so I hope...) : if Canada did occuppy St Pierre et Miquelon (like Argentina with the Falklands/Malouines), for whatever reason, would the French military have any shot at taking it back, or is there just no way ? (no nukes, no external assistance or diplomatic pressure)

Well, the Canadian navy is not very large, and I'm not sure about their army.

 

[CalBear]

Interesting, thanks.

And to extrapolate slightly : would France and Britain combined have the capacity to launch a major "projected" operation, say like the US can ?

Not a chance. There's insufficient lift for marine or other amphibious forces to conduct anything much larger than the historic Falklands operation. There's also not enough escorts to screen an invasion force of any decent size.

If you look at the current Jane's or Naval Institute Fleet round-ups its fairly clear that only the U.S. maintains sufficient lift to put much more than a regiment into a hostile landing zone.

As far as combat power, a single USN CBG is an overmatch for the combined UK/French surface fleet. Again a quick check of Jane's shows the numbers, not to mention the capabilities of the various vessels available.

That, of course, doesn't really answer the question completely. The UK has a very capable, albeit small, sub force & France is efforting towards a capable second generation SSN design. The combined UK/French fleet is capable of taking on pretty much any other fleet, save the Russian (assuming they can get sufficient ships out of port without the bottoms falling off due to poor maintenence), Chinese and the USN. I also wouldn't relish being the Admiral of a combined fleet as outlined taking on the Indian fleet INSIDE of Indian shore based aircover.

Or we could just test some mini-nuke on the NZ frigates, for "live target practice", and then say : "oops, sorry, but what the f**** were you guys doing here ???"

That might tend to irritate some other english speaking countries. Might even get them quite upset.

Then if he's an All-Black, we offer him a Gold contract to Toulouse or Paris Rugby team, and free booze during all his stay in France to defuse the whole thing... Who coud say no to that...?

No one I know.

That's a funny article... And the comparison between Royal and de Gaulle is pretty clever. Although it's hard to take seriously somebody named "Rex" (it sounds too much like a german shepherd... )

That whole incident with Royal was unbelievable. If a foreign leader had said 1/10th of that about a French region, we would probably have nuked them !


Another interesting question (or so I hope...) : if Canada did occuppy St Pierre et Miquelon (like Argentina with the Falklands/Malouines), for whatever reason, would the French military have any shot at taking it back, or is there just no way ? (no nukes, no external assistance or diplomatic pressure)

No. Even without the instant U.S. intervention (which would be an absolute given, the Atlantic is the USN's Ocean), France lacks sufficient combat power to deal with a 1st world military an Ocean away. Insufficient lift, and insufficient ASW to deal with Canada's three SSK's defending home waters. They would need to bring two reinforced, more likely three full regiments of invasion forces to retake the Island, assuming the Canadians deployed a single regiment. That force would be extremely exposed during the entire approach.

(BTW: That was the Argentine's big mistake in the Falklands. Too few troops were put into place to hold the island, mostly due to logistical issue (too hard to feed them). If the Argies had put a full division out there, the British would have been repulsed.)

The French Navy isn't built for that kind of power projection, outside of the USN, nobody is. (This kind of mission would require at least three, preferably four, USN CBG's to pull off with reasonable losses and probably close to a full Marine Division to execute the recapture the island while holding losses down).

 

[Hapsburg]

That's an interesting one, but one has to speculate on what sort of Canadian regime would do that...

I think a sovereign Quebec would be more likely to do that than either a Canadian regime or an independent Newfoundland. Quebec's speakers are French Canadian, speaking French, and could have a closer cultural affinity and claim than Newfoundland.
So...
Maybe Quebec becomes independent in that referendum in 1980, somehow (vote fraud?). Quebec charges up its military between 1980-1992, and then claims Saint-Pierre, seeing as St.P has a French-speaking population. France contests, and you got a war on yer hands. France beats them ten ways to tuesday, though at its not 20. So, Quebec is weakened and embarassed, much like Argentina post-Falk. Canada maybe moves in to reclaim, but thats another story.

 

[Sir Isaac Brock]

I think a sovereign Quebec would be more likely to do that

Umm... no.

France and the Quebec seperatist movement have close links going back the De Gaulle's famous 1967 "Vive le Quebec libre!" Speach

 

[L'Empereur]

Not a chance. There's insufficient lift for marine or other amphibious forces to conduct anything much larger than the historic Falklands operation. There's also not enough escorts to screen an invasion force of any decent size.
If you look at the current Jane's or Naval Institute Fleet round-ups its fairly clear that only the U.S. maintains sufficient lift to put much more than a regiment into a hostile landing zone.

As far as combat power, a single USN CBG is an overmatch for the combined UK/French surface fleet. Again a quick check of Jane's shows the numbers, not to mention the capabilities of the various vessels available.

Hmmm... That's really bad how we're lagging behind...
It's really strange European countries, although rich and technologically advanced, would leave such an advantage as the monopoly of force projection to their American ally, yet sometimes rival.

(Nuking NZ frigates)That might tend to irritate some other english speaking countries. Might even get them quite upset.

Really ??? Over NZ ??? Yeah, I guess then that's not worth risking a full-fledged war with all of the English speaking world just for a "practical joke"...
Plus the Italians might also tag along, Russell Crowe being the "Gladiator" and all that...

No. Even without the instant U.S. intervention (which would be an absolute given, the Atlantic is the USN's Ocean), France lacks sufficient combat power to deal with a 1st world military an Ocean away. Insufficient lift, and insufficient ASW to deal with Canada's three SSK's defending home waters. They would need to bring two reinforced, more likely three full regiments of invasion forces to retake the Island, assuming the Canadians deployed a single regiment. That force would be extremely exposed during the entire approach.

(BTW: That was the Argentine's big mistake in the Falklands. Too few troops were put into place to hold the island, mostly due to logistical issue (too hard to feed them). If the Argies had put a full division out there, the British would have been repulsed.)

The French Navy isn't built for that kind of power projection, outside of the USN, nobody is. (This kind of mission would require at least three, preferably four, USN CBG's to pull off with reasonable losses and probably close to a full Marine Division to execute the recapture the island while holding losses down).

So, with a good justification, Canada might try to have a go at it, if we can't recapture it...
I mean, that would be quite interesting, the US attacking Canada to recover a French island for France... Maybe for once Jacques Chirac would stop saying that "war is never the answer"...

 

[L'Empereur]

Umm... no.
France and the Quebec seperatist movement have close links going back the De Gaulle's famous 1967 "Vive le Quebec libre!" Speach

Plus I've always thought that Quebec yielded more influence for France from within the Canadian Federation, forcing some degree of bilinguism and biculturalism, whereas if it became independent, it would just be a weakling State surrounded by huge English-speaking neighbors and pretty much powerless.

 

[Hapsburg]

France and the Quebec seperatist movement have close links going back the De Gaulle's famous 1967 "Vive le Quebec libre!" Speach

So? One of the PODs could be that Gaulle doesn't support Quebecois independence of something. Who cares? How the hell else would we have some France falklands thingy? Besides that island, don't really hold anything else of significance, except maybe Guiana, but around there, there's no one strong enough to make any stand.
So what're you gonna do about it?

 

[CalBear]

Hmmm... That's really bad how we're lagging behind...
It's really strange European countries, although rich and technologically advanced, would leave such an advantage as the monopoly of force projection to their American ally, yet sometimes rival.



<snip>

The European countries are as wealthy as they are because they keep military budgets relatively small, compared to the U.S. The European forces are primarily defensive in nature, with little force projection potential. the NATO structure has always counted on the U.S. for that portion of the alliance's efforts. Most NATO navies are designed to work in concert with the USN. (NATO European forces, as an example, provide almost all the mine warfare capability in the Alliance.)

This makes sense for a couple of reasons. None of the individual European countries could afford a military the size of the U.S. (it's an open question if the U.S. can actually afford to maintain the current force). The second is that no one needs to keep a force that size outside of the Americans.

American interests (actual or assumed) require a two ocean navy and the ability to fight two major regional wars at the same time. France & Great Britain, the two strongest Western militaries after the U.S., do not have that kind of a need. France needs to be able to defend its Pacific possessions, which is why they need full deck carriers, but they don't have a requirement to keep the world's sea lanes open, project power into the Med, Gulf, keep an eye on the NK's & China all at the same time. Britain has needs similar to France. The U.S. has interests world-wide, from the Gulf to North Korea & maintains a force to deal with it. It also prevents the U.S. from offering many of the social benefits that are common across Western Europe. It is a trade-off that, so far, the American voter has approved. If that will continue to be the case is a matter for the furture.

 

[Wozza]

The European countries are as wealthy as they are because they keep military budgets relatively small, compared to the U.S.

This does not follow, most European countries aren't as wealthy as the US.

It also prevents the U.S. from offering many of the social benefits that are common across Western Europe. It is a trade-off that, so far, the American voter has approved. If that will continue to be the case is a matter for the furture.

European countries spend from between 1-3% of GDP on defence. The US around 3-4%. European public spending is 10-20 percentage points higher than the US. Contemporary defence budgets are in fact a drop in the ocean of public spending, even in the US at the moment.
Your model does not even work within Europe, France has one of the largest public sector's and in European terms has a high level of defence spending (proportionate to GDP as well as in absolute terms)

Apart from that, I agree with you!

 

[L'Empereur]

The European countries are as wealthy as they are because they keep military budgets relatively small, compared to the U.S. The European forces are primarily defensive in nature, with little force projection potential. the NATO structure has always counted on the U.S. for that portion of the alliance's efforts. Most NATO navies are designed to work in concert with the USN. (NATO European forces, as an example, provide almost all the mine warfare capability in the Alliance.)
This makes sense for a couple of reasons. None of the individual European countries could afford a military the size of the U.S. (it's an open question if the U.S. can actually afford to maintain the current force). The second is that no one needs to keep a force that size outside of the Americans.
American interests (actual or assumed) require a two ocean navy and the ability to fight two major regional wars at the same time. France & Great Britain, the two strongest Western militaries after the U.S., do not have that kind of a need. France needs to be able to defend its Pacific possessions, which is why they need full deck carriers, but they don't have a requirement to keep the world's sea lanes open, project power into the Med, Gulf, keep an eye on the NK's & China all at the same time. Britain has needs similar to France. The U.S. has interests world-wide, from the Gulf to North Korea & maintains a force to deal with it.

Sure, that's true, the US is a "global power" and needs the military that goes with it. However, France and Britain, or more generally some EU alliance should have the capability to spearhead an "Iraq style" expedition if they see fit to their interests. Not two at the same time, like the US, or a truly global presence, but at least one if needed. Not being able to do so is a serious flaw in influence, and basically condems it/us to be just a suppletive to the US - or do nothing.

It also prevents the U.S. from offering many of the social benefits that are common across Western Europe. It is a trade-off that, so far, the American voter has approved. If that will continue to be the case is a matter for the furture.

Well, like you said, most of the world order is based on that, so if that should change because, well, Joe Blow wants less Carriers and more Medicare, that would have huge global consequences...

 

[Thande]

Let's try to keep this as apolitical as possible, people, or take it to Political Chat.

 

[TheMann]

That's an interesting one, but one has to speculate on what sort of Canadian regime would do that...

Maybe if Newfoundland had become separately independent as it nearly did OTL, and an economic recession leaded to a junta taking over?

A big economic recession in itself with a right-wing government (preferably fare more right wing than Harper) would do the job. Canada doesn't have much of a military nowadays though. That said, check back in fifteen years are they'll probably have something for ya.