Sean Penn is a crock [Falklands Debate]

[rory_20_uk]

I'm personally up for hardening the island with decent batteries of ground to air and ground to ship missiles which are effective, have relatively low running costs and are purely a defensive weapon. If one can decimate their aircraft and slaughter amphibious landing craft / warships it will make the odds of an attack much lower. Static gun emplacements and mine fields would be OTT, and increasing the size of the garrison would be extremely expensive as well as increase the logistical difficulty of resupply.

Holding a referendum to see whether the Islanders would like to be made effectively a county of Blighty also seems sensible as then there is an increased chance that NATO would have to do something other than pursue "active defence" in Afghanistan in the event of an attack. France has at least decided to have both carriers as well as planes at the same time.

[gaelic cowboy]

Holding a referendum to see whether the Islanders would like to be made effectively a county of Blighty also seems sensible as then there is an increased chance that NATO would have to do something other than pursue "active defence" in Afghanistan in the event of an attack. France has at least decided to have both carriers as well as planes at the same time.

There might be a problem here since NATO is specifically set up too defend the Europe or North America the South Atlantic is outside it's remit.

The operation in Afghanistan was the only ocassion where article 5 was invoked and that was because of september 11th.

I would not be surprised to see a veto from Germany or France on operations in the South Atlantic.

[rory_20_uk]

Frankly, NATO is "America plus extras". Britain would invoke Article 5 and then meaningfully glare at America - "we jumped into an out of state mission which has gone nowhere and was a mess from the start, how about you help defend territory that is defined as part of our mainland".

The threat of the USA getting involved would be both another reason for Argentina to think twice, and a reason for the USA to apply a lot more diplomatic pressure, lest they get dragged into something they'd really rather not be, or else appear to be an ally of little value unless it is in their own interests which will loose them a fair amount of prestige / influence.

[gaelic cowboy]

Frankly, NATO is "America plus extras". Britain would invoke Article 5 and then meaningfully glare at America - "we jumped into an out of state mission which has gone nowhere and was a mess from the start, how about you help defend territory that is defined as part of our mainland".

The threat of the USA getting involved would be both another reason for Argentina to think twice, and a reason for the USA to apply a lot more diplomatic pressure, lest they get dragged into something they'd really rather not be,

Now thats more like it frankly, this is a senario I could believe if the Falklands were made a county.

However this all hinges on the Argentina been mad and invading, whereas the diplomatic areana frankly favours Argentina.

or else appear to be an ally of little value unless it is in their own interests which will loose them a fair amount of prestige / influence.

And yet they would gain diplomatically in South America a region that will grow in importance for America as it pivots to Asia. South America has access to the Pacific which means it is a part of the wider Asian strategic plan for the USA.

They would only loose face with Britain who quite frankly would just have to suck it up as Britains strategic plan does not involve cutting itself of from America over the Falklands.

So unfortunately this means I dont expect to see the Falklands being made a county, in fact I bet Sir Humphrey types will never let it happen.