4 ms·

One of the main goals of the RN's aircraft carrier program is presumably to help out in any Falklands War II, and the US stayed out of it last time (for reasons

by gydfi 10y ago

One of the main goals of the RN's aircraft carrier program is presumably to help out in any Falklands War II, and the US stayed out of it last time (for reasons I've never understood -- wtf Ronnie?)

rodgerd 10y ago
Maintaining the remaining tattered shreds of the British Empire was less important to US interests that not annoying their South American client states.
M_Grey 10y ago
That's true, but do you really think we'd stay neutral again? The "Special Relationship" has only been more emphasized over the last decades, and we probably owe some for co-opting their PM and dragging them into Iraq.
- gydfi 10y ago
  You're right, the major war prior to the Falklands was Vietnam, and the British didn't help out in that one, so I guess there was no reason the US felt obliged to help out a decade later in the Falklands. I guess it really depends on US-Argentina relations, and also whether the UK looks like they actually need any help. The US could at least help out covertly. "Whoops, the entire Argentinian Navy just exploded at once! I guess the British must have more submarines down there than we thought!" Realistically from what I've read, Argentina is so militarily depleted nowadays, and the UK has learned so much from the previous war, that Argentina couldn't even win a war against the British forces garrisoned in the Falklands, let alone the reinforcements. There is no chance of a serious war... although when I went to Argentina last year I found there's still freaking road signs by the side of the road with a map of the Falklands and proclaiming "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" (or whatever the correct Spanish is)
  - gaius 10y ago
    You're right, the major war prior to the Falklands was Vietnam, and the British didn't help out in that one Guess you've forgotten the British contribution to the Korean war? Then again I guess we forgot the US stabbing us in the back in Suez. Argentina couldn't even win a war against the British forces garrisoned in the Falklands, let alone the reinforcements It does boggle the mind that 4 Typhoons and an Infantry company is enough these days.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    > The US could at least help out covertly There were a heck of a lot of USAF C-141s on Ascension Island during the conflict. We haven't even been told half of what went on, even the crews transiting southbound weren't privy to what was in them ( and I've asked a few ). Over 100 AIM-9L missiles were delivered to the UK forces from the US production lines, and in some cases from USAF fighter units, within 48 hours of the request. The all-apect-seeking '9L was critical in achieving air superiority as the '9G model in UK service was basically tail-chase only. Satellite imagery was also made available on a daily basis. Mr Reagan also, apparently, personally offered a CVN for general support duties in the Atlantic ( SAR, refuelling etc ) though I haven't seen any official confirmation of that.
  - manarth 10y ago
    the major war prior to the Falklands was Vietnam, and the British didn't help out in that one Technically, that war was between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, not against America, which means there was no NATO obligation to join.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Conversely, Trump has been talking about reducing NATO commitments and that Europe doesn't "pay its own way". Difficult to know which way it would go.
  - gydfi 10y ago
    Trump has been specifically talking about the countries which fail to spend the 2% of GDP on military which is (apparently) mandated by the treaty. The UK is fine in this regard (along with only four other NATO powers though). President Trump isn't really interested in dismantling NATO, just in making sure that the US doesn't have to continue to shoulder quite such a large fraction of the costs.
MrZongle2 10y ago
The U.S. was concerned about improving Argentinan-Soviet ties. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Position_of_third_party_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Position_of_thir...
KineticLensman 10y ago
The UK now has a serious combat airfield [0] on the Falklands with Typhoons [1] permanently based there, and a much larger garrison. If this doesn't deter aggression against the islands, a remote carrier wouldn't. Personally, I doubt that Falklands II will ever happen because the Argentinians never substantially rebuilt their airforce. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1312_Flight_RAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1312_Flight_RAF
anexprogrammer 10y ago
Chile had a key role in helping out the Brits in the Falklands. The US, or more specifically Reagan, offered Thatcher use of a carrier or two if one of ours was lost. Supposedly it was going to be navy to navy with as little involvement of politics as possible. Oh, and they sold us a bunch of extra sidewinders at zero notice.
gozur88 10y ago
We had been cultivating Argentina to help deal with communist insurgencies in South and Central America. For the US the right ending was you to win without the Argentinian public seeing us as an enemy. So we helped by delivering missiles early and even supposedly offered to lend you a carrier (which would be crewed by the UK), but didn't get involved directly. I doubt the Argentinians were much happier than they'd have been if we started dropping bombs, but that was the thinking.

by gydfi 10y ago

One of the main goals of the RN's aircraft carrier program is presumably to help out in any Falklands War II, and the US stayed out of it last time (for reasons I've never understood -- wtf Ronnie?)

rodgerd 10y ago

Maintaining the remaining tattered shreds of the British Empire was less important to US interests that not annoying their South American client states.

M_Grey 10y ago

That's true, but do you really think we'd stay neutral again? The "Special Relationship" has only been more emphasized over the last decades, and we probably owe some for co-opting their PM and dragging them into Iraq.

gydfi 10y ago
You're right, the major war prior to the Falklands was Vietnam, and the British didn't help out in that one, so I guess there was no reason the US felt obliged to help out a decade later in the Falklands. I guess it really depends on US-Argentina relations, and also whether the UK looks like they actually need any help. The US could at least help out covertly. "Whoops, the entire Argentinian Navy just exploded at once! I guess the British must have more submarines down there than we thought!" Realistically from what I've read, Argentina is so militarily depleted nowadays, and the UK has learned so much from the previous war, that Argentina couldn't even win a war against the British forces garrisoned in the Falklands, let alone the reinforcements. There is no chance of a serious war... although when I went to Argentina last year I found there's still freaking road signs by the side of the road with a map of the Falklands and proclaiming "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" (or whatever the correct Spanish is)
- gaius 10y ago
  You're right, the major war prior to the Falklands was Vietnam, and the British didn't help out in that one Guess you've forgotten the British contribution to the Korean war? Then again I guess we forgot the US stabbing us in the back in Suez. Argentina couldn't even win a war against the British forces garrisoned in the Falklands, let alone the reinforcements It does boggle the mind that 4 Typhoons and an Infantry company is enough these days.
- dingaling 10y ago
  > The US could at least help out covertly There were a heck of a lot of USAF C-141s on Ascension Island during the conflict. We haven't even been told half of what went on, even the crews transiting southbound weren't privy to what was in them ( and I've asked a few ). Over 100 AIM-9L missiles were delivered to the UK forces from the US production lines, and in some cases from USAF fighter units, within 48 hours of the request. The all-apect-seeking '9L was critical in achieving air superiority as the '9G model in UK service was basically tail-chase only. Satellite imagery was also made available on a daily basis. Mr Reagan also, apparently, personally offered a CVN for general support duties in the Atlantic ( SAR, refuelling etc ) though I haven't seen any official confirmation of that.
- manarth 10y ago
  the major war prior to the Falklands was Vietnam, and the British didn't help out in that one Technically, that war was between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, not against America, which means there was no NATO obligation to join.
pjc50 10y ago
Conversely, Trump has been talking about reducing NATO commitments and that Europe doesn't "pay its own way". Difficult to know which way it would go.
- gydfi 10y ago
  Trump has been specifically talking about the countries which fail to spend the 2% of GDP on military which is (apparently) mandated by the treaty. The UK is fine in this regard (along with only four other NATO powers though). President Trump isn't really interested in dismantling NATO, just in making sure that the US doesn't have to continue to shoulder quite such a large fraction of the costs.

MrZongle2 10y ago

The U.S. was concerned about improving Argentinan-Soviet ties. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Position_of_third_party_countries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Position_of_thir...

KineticLensman 10y ago

The UK now has a serious combat airfield [0] on the Falklands with Typhoons [1] permanently based there, and a much larger garrison. If this doesn't deter aggression against the islands, a remote carrier wouldn't. Personally, I doubt that Falklands II will ever happen because the Argentinians never substantially rebuilt their airforce. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1312_Flight_RAF https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1312_Flight_RAF

anexprogrammer 10y ago

Chile had a key role in helping out the Brits in the Falklands. The US, or more specifically Reagan, offered Thatcher use of a carrier or two if one of ours was lost. Supposedly it was going to be navy to navy with as little involvement of politics as possible. Oh, and they sold us a bunch of extra sidewinders at zero notice.

gozur88 10y ago

We had been cultivating Argentina to help deal with communist insurgencies in South and Central America. For the US the right ending was you to win without the Argentinian public seeing us as an enemy. So we helped by delivering missiles early and even supposedly offered to lend you a carrier (which would be crewed by the UK), but didn't get involved directly. I doubt the Argentinians were much happier than they'd have been if we started dropping bombs, but that was the thinking.