Afaik, not even over the Falklands. What would be the point?...
HMS EAGLE in the Falklands
- Thread starter flasheart
- Start date
Afaik, not even over the Falklands. What would be the point?...
In OTL there was no need for that; all it took was 1 bomber flight over the Falklands to scare the air force into keeping the Mirages over land.
Sorry I just don't get this. Argentina invaded Sovereign UK territory, and at this point in the thread has had ample opportunity to admit their mistake and leave the Islands.
How is it un reasonable for the UK to attack military targets within Argentina so long as there is a valid military rationale for doing so ?
I agree with the comments expressed by others.. If some countries don't like this.. to bad.
Edit to add:
I can't imagine a NATO nation wanting to set a precedent that as a matter of policy reasonably proportional military action shouldn't be taken against the home land of a country that invades your territory and refuses to leave. I can just imagine how the front line NATO states might have reacted to this type of logic in the early 1980's.
Last edited:
SsgtC
Banned
While I do broadly agree with you, you're overlooking one big thing in your comparison. The Soviet Union isn't some piddling third world dictatorship that would have trouble pouring piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed under the heel. They're the Soviet Union. A highly developed and advanced military, economic and diplomatic power. Who also holds a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and has enough nuclear weapons to end all life on Earth several times over all by itself.
I'm not totally sure I'm fully following your example, but it occured to me that a number of NATO nations owned (and still own) islands that could conceivably have been seized by the Warsaw Pact.
I can't imagine many NATO nations being happy with a precedent being set that it somehow wasn't ok to attack nations that seized islands and refused to give them back.
SsgtC
Banned
Sorry, been a long day. Spent the entire day with my kids at SeaWorld in Orlando. What I meant was, you really can't compare the UK's reaction, and the restraint they showed, when dealing with Argentina (an arguably third world country) and what the UK's reaction would be to the USSR attacking a NATO country
No worries, that makes a lot of sense. I agree the UK chose to show restraint but in my view that was a choice the UK made for their own reasons.
Regards
Blue cat
While not a perfect comparison, would anybody expect the US to exercise similar restraint if Cuba somehow occupied Puerto Rico in the early 80s?
Because that's just dumb or to be more precise no one, not even the USSR is gonna give a rats ass about someone who decides to piss a global superpower 90 miles away
Now a regional power looking to settle some old scores over an island in the Southern Cone that's close to 7000 miles from the owner's mainland? well, perceptions change. Is it right? Probably not but neither is the world
In 1982, Thatcher though having a good relationship politically with Regan did not have the whole hearted support of the rest of the US Government. Politically America would not have been pleased if Britain had stomped all over the mainland military capability of a major anti communist regime in South America. I believe that the aid that was given to the British by the US came with a number of caveats, one of which was "no strikes on mainland Argentina' without Uncle Sam's approval. IMVHO that approval would only be given if for military reasons there were no other options open to the British Government other than failing to regain the Falkland Islands.
Aid?? Caveats?? Nonsense.
No such caveats, restrictions or any other form of limitations were either issued or postulated.
As for 'Aid', I think you probably mean 'assistance' - which was pretty much limited to bulk fuel delivered to Ascension (a British possession, lest you forget) & additional AIM-9L rounds (which were actually drawn from declared NATO war stocks - the initial Limas the fleet sailed with were 'borrowed' from the Wattisham Phantom wing, which received theirs commencing in Jan '82).
You're comparing the actions and justifications of a dictatorship with a democracy. There is no way the Junta will "admit their mistake". For them, this is truly a "game of thrones": you win or you die. OTL proved it. As for the UK, there simply is no need to take such a risk move: they could loose planes in the attack, aircrews could be captured (giving the Junta hostages)... and that's even if the Junta doesn't fabricate civilian casualties. All of which would complicate the political side. Don't forget that, right untill the shooting started OTL, (and even after) there were voices urging the UK no to attack and negociate more, even in Europe. Spain stayed neutral in both the UN and EU, almost openly siding with Argentina (right up to that mess up that was Operation Algeciras). The UK's mandate has been to liberate the Falklands. If it starts bombing the mainland, specially if it's winning so clearly, voices will rise up. The UK has to appear as "pure of thought" as possible.
No! I am talking about political and intelligence aid/assistance, IIRC at the time the support of the USA at the UN was at best ambivalent under Jean Kirkpatrick. Partly due to this and other political considerations the actions taken by the UK Government in recapturing the Falkland Islands that the USA would find acceptable most definitely put caveats on their political support for the UK's operations in the South Atlantic. Being a Brit, in Yank land at the time, I can recall having to argue the case for a military response by the UK at all! To most Americans it was a spat between two nations over some useless rocks far away about which they new little and cared less.
Kirkpatrick was a nut with a bee in her bonnet about maintaining a south American anti communist alliance above all else. However Britain is America's stone aircraft carrier in the cold war at this point. They need Britain more than Argentina so backing (the missiles, offer of Iwa Jima) will be forthcoming. That said escalation could lead to Chile invading and a more general south American war starting. If the war (as seems clear) can be won without escalation its probably for the best.
Ah spain yes that continental superpower. Spain has just come out of a dictorship and are pretty weak. What is spain going to do invade britain, send a harshly worded letter. France and germany are the important european nations and they supported the UK. Also it doesn't matter what voices, europe might criticise the uk but will still back the uk, south america doesn't matter as they will not want to actaully join the war. Your acting on the assumption britain has no commited allies and that the western block will immediately turn on them if they break a rule, but that never been the case with western nations. They have broken rules and done bad stuff yet the western allies never turn on them. When the USA invaded grenada, the west didn't turn on the usa did it.
But wait! What if Argentina forestalled the buildup at Ascension Island by dispatching a small task force equipped with some heavy bulldozers to destroy Wideawake Airfield and-
*Cymraeg is deafened by the screams of "Not this shit again" and is then dragged off by a pack of frenzied realists*
(In case anyone is confused I am referring to this... object)
*Cymraeg is deafened by the screams of "Not this shit again" and is then dragged off by a pack of frenzied realists*
(In case anyone is confused I am referring to this... object)
Be a chance to see what a Carl Gustav does to an unarmoured tractor I guess.
Ambivalence is fine, diminished political support is fine - both are a world apart from complete withdrawal of political support - or worse - which, even then, isn't in & of itself going to impede such actions as the UK deems necessary. Short of directly threatening their own military intervention in proceedings (which absolutely isn't happening), however strident the reticence and disapproval becomes, the UK still has free reign.
Again, you (the US) might argue your side, but you're absolutely not going to see the US pissing off their most important military and political ally by attempting to muzzle them and dictating how they might respond to an act of blatant aggression. Grenada, Libya and much else will play out rather differently in that world...