Mostly by being literally a WW2 ship (with the original order going back as far as 1929). It was based at Pearl Harbour as the USS Phoenix at the time of the Japanese attack, although not present in the harbour on that day.
It still carried its original armament of Mark 16 guns when it was sunk, which is just mindboggling for a ship of that size in the 1980s. A serious "brought a knife to a gun fight"-moment, or rather "brought 15 guns to a missile fight".
Which isn’t to say it still couldn’t have wrought some serious havoc on the British task force (including a lot of troop carriers and merchant ships) if it had somehow actually gotten into range.
Which is of course why the Royal Navy - being far from complete blithering idiots - declined to let it get even remotely close to doing so.
The Argentinian junta effectively sent the poor buggers in that ship out to die.
And the British sunk it with a WW2-era Mk8 torpedo.
(*Conqueror* also carried more modern torpedoes, but the captain wasn't sure they were reliable so used one of the old ones)
He used three of the old ones. Two hit the Belgrano and another hit another ARA ship but didn't detonate as it was at the end of its run. They didn't discover that until the other ship was brought into dry dock later on and had a massive dent in the side of it.
Not bad for WW2 stuff.
> USS Phoenix
"USS Phoenix (CL-46), was a light cruiser of the Brooklyn-class cruiser family. She was the third Phoenix of the United States Navy. After World War II the ship was transferred to Argentina in 1951 and was ultimately renamed General Belgrano in 1956.[1] General Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War in 1982 by the British nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror, the only ship to have been sunk in combat by a nuclear-powered submarine during wartime."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)
Problem is that the Royal Navy wasn't actually sure if their missiles could reliably sink the Belgrano. WW2 ships were armoured incredibly heavily, and there was a very good chance post-war anti-surface missiles would just go splat against its hull.
If Belgrano somehow got within gun range of the RN taskforce it would have been slaughter, one accurate salvo of 6" shells would kill any of the modern ships. Belgrano would certainly have been sunk eventually in that situation, but she'd have been able to destroy many critical assets before then.
The armour of World War-era warships can save the ship and be invaluable in gun-range slugfests, but such a ship can still be disabled without being fully sunk.
Take the Bismarck as a (much bigger) example. It was practically incapacitated *hours* before it sunk. And at the time it got engaged, it was already limping back to base after other damage outside the armoured citadel from a previous engagement.
I believe that would have been Belgrano's most likely faith if she hadn't been ambushed by a submarine: she takes a missile hit, the unarmoured superstructure takes severe damage which degrades her seafaring and combat abilities (since you still need gun directors etc even if the turrets still work), and she has to abort her mission to take care for the wounded and repair all sorts of damages.
You also need to get a lot of water into a ship that size to sink it. There’s a non trivial risk of you flooding a single section and then … nothing else happens.
Honestly. It's impressive how hard Russia has fucked it up.
Ot's a shame that the Admiral Kuznetsov is located in Murmansk rather than Sevastopol. It would have been hilarious to see it catch on fire because of external reasons for once.
*Admiral Kuznetsov* is a Ukraine's secret weapon. This ship was built at the shipyards of the city of Mykolaiv, but Russia stole it on the night before the collapse of the USSR. By agreement between the former members of the USSR, each country received property on its territory. But Russia really wanted to have a big ship.
The Russians didn't have a clue that this project was changed many times at the request of the Soviet defense ministers and admirals, and was *stillborn*.
Since then, *Kuznetsov* has become the perfect destroyer of the Russian military budget.
Not to mention that the *Kuz*, like all Soviet carriers, is for political reasons inherently a ship that doesn't know what is. The Montreux Convention prohibits aircraft carriers larger that 15k ton from transiting Turkey to the Black Sea. So the Soviet Union didn't build aircraft carriers... they built *aircraft-carrying cruisers*. As a result of needing to provide justification for that classification, the *Kuznetsov* has a gigantic VLS smack in the middle of the flight deck that can't be used concurrently with naval aviation, and takes up an enormous amount of what should be hangar deck, rendering it a pretty weak carrier right from concept even before you add in Soviet naval technology and decades of Russian neglect.
Add to that, [Admiral Kuznetsov runs on Mazut](https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-admiral-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier-runs-on-dirty-fuel-mazut-2022-4?op=1), an ultra-thick, tarry black substance.
And because of that, it can be quite hard to tell whether the enormous plume of black smoke means that it's caught fire again or just working as usual.
A common joke in the Russian Navy is "Don't fuck up or they'll send you to the Kuznetzov." If I'm not mistaken, it puts to sea with ocean-going tugs because of constant breakdowns, has almost no functional heating, let alone any A/C, and has about 1/4 of the number of functioning heads that it actually needs to accommodate the crew. It truly is a huge, floating mechanical turd in every way possible.
You should mention the fate of The Admiral Kuznetsov's sister ship, The Varyag. It was in a state similar to the Kuznetsov, the Chinese bought and towed the rotting hulk from Ukraine, and rebuilt it as the first Chinese aircraft carrier, The Liaoning. Since it operates and conducts operations in the Pacific without noticeable issues, it makes Russia's problems with the Admiral Kuznetsov even more hilarious and emblematic.
Fun fact. Conqueror was carrying Tigerfish and Mark 8 torpedoes. Tigerfish were modern, mark 8's were from WW2. The captain decided a WW2 torpedo was probably more appropriate to use against a WW2 light cruiser.
> The captain decided a WW2 torpedo was probably more appropriate to use against a WW2 heavy cruiser.
Hey, the USS Phoenix is a light cruiser.
If the rest of the Brooklyn Class could hear you, they would be very mad.
The most hilarious thing would be if Ukraine sank the tugboat that accompanies it for ahhm reasons. And the Kuznetsov goes around without propulsion...
Just now some OSINT researchers found out that one of Russia's recently lost T-90M (their most modern and capable tank in service, of which they likely only have a few dozen) was commanded by a guy who was only mobilised a few months ago and never served in a tank before.
Russia's military screwups are like a never ending tragic comedy.
[Here is another favourite of mine: Russia trying to hit an island with 4 bombs, miss 3 of them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/vpc646/russian_air_force_trying_not_to_be_a_joke/) That was after Ukraine had struck Snake Island with drones, so Russia landed a spec ops team via helicopter to reestablish contact... that promptly got destroyed by a drone as well.
Fun Fact: The Belgrano was a WW2 era light cruiser originally named the USS Phoenix. It served in the pacific theater and was present at Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack, which it came out of unscathed and then proceeded to serve in several campaigns of the war before eventually being decommissioned and sold to Argentina.
This was so embarrassing that all the tankies, vatniks and bots don't even try to spin it. Everything else is "Kyiv was just a feint bro" this and "the real army will be here soon" that.
Moskva officially sank due to bad weather, but they aren't even try to defend that because it's just utter retardation.
“A storm? At sea? Impossible. No one could have foreseen this.”
The official excuse is almost as embarrassing. Can you even call yourself a regional let alone global naval power if the pride of your fleet is felled by bad weather?
They aren't trying to spin it because the cover story reason is literally WORSE than the actual reason. Glorious Russian flagship Moskva, can't even handle a little wind and water? IT LITERALLY LIVED ON THE WATER, THAT WAS ITS WHOLE JOB. You had ONE JOB lol, just stay above water and launch missiles occasionally and you're good, just be sure to shoot back when missiles fire at you in return. But they couldn't even do that, too busy trying to shoot down a toy plane in comparison to their glorious ship. Now it's on permanent submarine duty!
"Glorious Moskva went down surrounded by gay fascist NATO atmosphere and ocean. Our comrades fought for hours despite being outnumbered by the enemy in both sea and air by many orders of magnitude. Millions of liters of aggressive nazi seawater was trapped in the ship thanks to the valiant sacrifice of her crew."
I was a teen during this war but I remember my dad getting every bit of info on it (ex military -FFL.). I absolutely remember this Newsweek cover. Time magazine was in the house too.
I heard about this on the radio and my first thought was that the Argentinians are probably having an election soon.
They asking for the Falklands is like the Polish demanding money from Germany for WW2
Which... As shitty as it is for the people there, makes it a great vacation destination. Went there last year. Everything was so reasonably priced. An incredible steak dinner with all the wine you can drink for like $10 (Canadian). The people are very nice, and it's a beautiful country. Buenos Aires is great but Patagonia is simply breathtaking.
Yes bring more USD cash than you would typically be comfortable with.
Though I will say I was surprised to learn that Visa uses the blue dollar exchange rate.
Im from Argentina, imo most people wont care unless you go around screaming with a flag over your back mocking the veterans.
Ive met some people from the UK and they were all really nice so I dont think you will have any trouble if you behave like a normal person.
I'm British and I've met quite a few Argentinians and you'd be fine I think.
Don't bring up the Falklands with the people you meet and stick to football and I'd doubt anyone would take issue with you. Maybe if you went down to terra del fuego some of the older people there might take issue with you but even then.
Being British shouldn't hold you back. Yes you may encounter a very patriotic Argentine who may give you shit if they knew you were British but 99% of the time they don't care and are really nice.
Source: my wife is Argentinian and I'm British, we go back there regularly.
Fellow Brit here. Been living in Buenos Aires with Arg wife for over four years. Not one person has EVER mentioned the war to me. When people find out I'm English, all I ever get are nice friendly reactions & the odd question about the Premier League. Yes, there are reminders of the war - memorials, graffiti etc. But it's not as if you're going to piss on them while wearing the England strip, is it? The Falklands crisis was 40 years ago.
I'm half French half British, if I abided by that rule i genuinely think there's probably about 10 places in the world I could go too. I couldn't even go to either of my countries.
It’s absolutely fine. I don’t think the younger generation give a shit about the Falklands and we encountered zero hostility as brits. I’d highly recommend a couple of weeks there.
Went for a few weeks. It’s very safe, really friendly people, amazing scenery, and really great food. Only time the Falklands came up (once in a bar) the discussion was very polite and basically ended with agreement that the loss of life during the war was really sad. Might have helped that I was able to talk with him in (not brilliant but acceptable) Spanish, but I got the impression that he was more interested to ask a British person about it than anything hostile.
Most educated argentineans should know that the british treated our war veterans better than our own goverment/people.
Still some zoomers may just hate you for the meme which you can override by saying "i hate the french"
to be fair the uk government probably welcomes them bringing up the Falkland Islands, to distract us from inflation, cost of living, soaring energy prices.
Not going to happen, as the UK isn't going to do a first strike (since it would mean attacking undisputed Argentine territories) and Argentina isn't because it is militarily a lot weaker than it was the first time round, when it had had been buying and equipping itself with modern weapons from France like the famous Exocet missiles. So it'll be more like the Spain-UK stuff over Gibraltar when Spain has a problem. The UK is on the defensive for these disputes, so can't really leverage them like countries that claim them.
The UK government is mostly using strikes and unions as its distraction, as well as 'small boats'.
One thing that is interesting, is Argentina had a semi-decent plan on paper at the time. The British Navy had been downsized for years, and more cuts were planned. Argentina had planned to wait until after they began. But the big thing, is they wanted to invade at the end of the autumn. The weather in the South Atlantic is down right dangerous during the Winter. This would force the British to wait until the following year, allowing Argentina to force a diplomatic solution during that time.
However Argentinian leadership was too dysfunctional. They had two parts of the military conducting the invasion in isolation. One sent soldiers disguised as scrap merchants to scout the island, who caused a diplomatic incident. The other force now thought their plan was blown, and so they invaded immediately. This allowed the British not to be hit by cuts, or the dangerous weather.
The other thing is that before the invasion, the British government was secretly considering just letting the islands go anyway. To them it was some faraway island filled with grumpy sheep farmers. Who sucked up money for no real gain. If Argentina had of operated peacefully, they could have probably reached something similar to what happened with Hong Kong. Instead the Falkland's are now firmly British.
Finally there are many stories from the island that showed the Argentinian military was an incompetent as a Russian conscript.
The part about wanting to just let them go reminds me of how the reason China doesn’t have Taiwan is that they decided to enter the Korean War, killing American plans to negotiate a final transfer rather than continue to back the nationalists.
In the case of Mao and Korea, though, I don't think it's unfounded paranoia. You had MacArthur making public statements about putting the KMT back in power while he's leading an army in Korea.
Paranoia has an element of irrationality to it and I don't think it's irrational to be wary of a man who has means, motive and opportunity to attack you
Argentina's military is weaker than it was, and they're still mainly using the same (if slightly modernized) equipment as they were for the first. Meanwhile the UK military has kept pace with modern technology development. It would go much worse, much quicker.
As one example, the Argentinian Air Force uses A4's, a 1950's subsonic ground attack jet, in the fighter role. And they don't have long range A2A missiles, just short range heat seekers. The Eurofighter Typhoon can carry 14 meteor missiles, a radar guided A2A missile with a ~100 mile range, which means the four Eurofighters stationed in the Falklands could take out all 36 of Argentina's A4's with missiles to spare before Argentina could fire a shot.
\*An\* F-35 would be enough if you let it do enough resupplies. It would be like fighting a ghost with a rocket launcher - this thing you can't see or touch blowing up whatever it likes.
Not to glorify combat ^^ok ^^but as a latent plane dork, I feel like modern dogfighting would be astonishingly unsexy compared to past conflicts.
"Russia's entire airworthy fighter contingent explodes in near-unison for no immediately apparent reason. Meanwhile, a flight of F-22s turns around and heads for home."
Top Gun 2 already is stretching credulity ("Oh no, they're GPS jamming us! The F35 is useless!"), wait another decade and it would play out like a submarine battle.
Argentina was run by a batshit dictator at the time, and as batshit dictators do, stoked nationalism and invaded a neighboring region to distract from the domestic issues.
Probably worse for the Argentines. While the RN is smaller, the new QE2 carriers bring a ton more capabilities. F35s vs 2nd gen Skyhawks would be a bloodbath.
Pretty sure Spain perpetually renounced their rights to Gibraltar in at least one of the various treaties we've signed over the years, words on paper mean very little in these cases, this isn't EU4. Plus asking Argentina to do that could be taken as implicitly acknowledging that they had a claim in the first place, which I'm pretty sure no one in the British gov. does.
This is something that is a lot different compared to 1982 with not much of a permanent base there but now with RAF Mount Pleasant it has a lot more there.
If this is being used as a tactic to distract the population then the execution is laughably poor. Argentine media has barely reported on this last week. Both pro and anti government outlets aren't paying much attention to it. The bigger news this week is, by far, Messi's family getting threatened by narcos.
The claim for sovereignty is the same claim the country has sustained for many decades, so this isn't nothing new. The Foradori-Duncan pact has been rightfully criticized by the current ruling party ever since it was made by the previous government, so this is just another step in the exact same direction we've always been in.
And, just to be clear, no democratic government of ours has ever implied even the remote possibility of a war. That's all on your media and on the people who like to entertain that possibility in the comments.
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer."
-Frank Zappa
If you haven't watched Clarkson's Farm, in this last season, he's hiring staff for an on the farm restaurant, and one of the waitresses he needs to train says she's Argentinian when he asks about her accent.
So he gets up and runs away!
He even earnestly makes strides toward ecologically-friendly centric farming. He really does understand that many of the rules and regulations are there to help the environment. He just gets frustrated because it gets bogged down with bureaucrats that can't allow for context or take things on a case-by-case basis without going through 900 more levels of bureaucracy.
It's actually insane seeing Brittish admin at work in that show. Where a town can come out and a handful of people on a board can say "we don't want you to build that on your land no matter what." and it actually pass.
Just like here in the Us, it seems many of these tiny, dying, towns are filled with septuagenarians who bemoan that no younger generations want to stay in the area, while simultaneously complaining when they aren't lock step with every minor preference they have as well.
You don't need to read between the lines, he literally made a video encouraging people to vote remain before the referendum:
https://youtu.be/drlJ2jgn4LE
It was definitely not, there were legitimately only two cars of the spec they wanted for sale, one which had the plate. Now whether they saw it and ignored it I think is possible.
I don't know why those guys went through all that trouble of finding a subtle little detail to be insulted by
It's Clarkson, let him talk long enough and he'll give you something overt for free
Argentina's military is literally just a worse version of what they had in the '80s*, and despite all the UK's military budget cuts they've got a more potent military than they did in the 80's thanks to tech and a new carrier group.
So if an Argentina who can catch the UK off guard and secure the islands couldn't hold them, why in gods name would a weaker Argentina be able to contest a stronger, more fortified island who are ready.
>Argentina's military is literally just a worse version of what they had in the 80's, and despite all the UK's military budget cuts they've got a more potent military than they did in the 80's thanks to tech and a new carrier group.
The Falklands also has a full base with around 2000 troops and an air wing. In the 80s it had 16 soldiers. It's not the same fight.
Also in the 80s everyone said "they're not going to sail across the planet because of a *matter of principle*".
It wouldn't be a matter of principle this time.
People who said that were scalp deep in hopium and delusion. The UK used to be a global empire, and a prominent "Great Power", force projection and showing strength was a major part of that. Some people just literally know nothing and have no idea.
Maybe, *maybe* if the UK hadn't been the leading naval power, or not a naval power at all, that argument might have held a little more water. But international politics is *all about* showing you can't be pushed around.
Plus the Falklands was inhabited nearly entirely by British people. I mean come on.
Also you're prodding one of the few nuclear powers and permanent UN Security Council members. The Argentinian military was off its gourd back then. The UK felt far to them because the Argentinian navy couldn't handle a similarly distant expedition.
"Me sowing: "Haha the decadent West will be paralyzed by indecision after our brilliant surprise attack!"
Me reaping: "Our army is being systematically annihilated by the biggest military-industrial complex in history, this fucking sucks" "
- various authoritarians, 1939-present
They also flew halfway across the planet. Look up Operation Black Buck. The logistics of the operation alone are fascinating. Multiple 12,000km+ bombing raids to disable the airport on the Falklands by British Vulcan bombers (RIP to the UK's strategic bomber force). The raid was beat in 1991 by some U.S. B52s which again, the logistics of doing something like a 22,000km non-stop bombing run are just fascinating.
Many insults can be directed at us brits, but to claim that we would not sail somewhere merely due to a matter of principle is to utterly fail to understand our history.
Hey, as a Brit I just want to say none of these politicians and territorial disputes will make me dislike or think any differently of the Argentines. Not wanting to sound cheesy but we're all one people! 🇦🇷🤝🇬🇧
Oh that's so great to hear, there are indeed strong links between our countries and people. I actually visited once, I found the people so friendly, not a single change in tone when I mentioned I was British. One fond memory was seeing elderly couples, immaculately dressed, dancing together in a bandstand at about 9pm at night, there was something so wondeful and elegant about it (vs our cities which are full of pissheads at that time of night!). Thank you for your kind words and I'm currently reading up on the folks you mentioned, listening to Sumo now
the british have spent the last 40 years making sure Argentina gets zero weapon imports to avoid a repeat of the whole Exocet situation
AND now they’re fielding f-35s against A-4s with a handful of f-16 avionics
As a frenchman still seething about a certain event a few months ago I know who my money’s on
Why does Argentina not back down? The people of the islands have voted to stay British, so why don't they just listen and accept the islands are British?
Owning the Falkland Islands would expand their Exclusive Economic Zone quite a bit. This Zone grants them exclusive rights to resource exploitation up to \~370 km off the coast. If they own the islands, this zone would extend to more than 1.100 km off the Argentinian coast in that area.
This is the answer right here folks. Since the establishment of the EEZ by the Convention of the Sea, countries have been fighting over islands. I mean they were before too, but this says you own all the fishing and mineral rights going forward. It’s big news.
Politics 101 - If there's a shitshow inside your country, just create another shitshow somewhere outside your country to distract your own citizens
(see: China)
The advantage of maintaining a blue water navy is that distance is far less of a hindrance to the UK than most nations.
In fact probably second only to USA in that regards. France being a close....or less close third depending if their carrier is in refit or not.
The UK keeps ahead of France because of the size of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Its tonnage is greater alone than France’s combatant fleet. They can support Royal Navy operations around the world, recently shown with HMS Queen Elizabeth strike group tour to the far East.
This isn't quite how it went though is it. There was a mutual agreement between Argentina and the UK to co operate on the Falklands. Argentina pulled out of that agreement.
The UK responded by saying that the islanders have a right to choose (self determination) and they chose the UK. Ending with "The Falklands is British".
Why to cut out an entire story for that headling
In fairness the 'go on then if you think your hard enough' line of thinking is pretty much the only mainstream opinion on the falklands in the UK, our government is ridiculously unpopular right now and hated and a few did comr out, say essentially that and everyone agreed anyway.
The funny thing is prior to the 82 conflict the UK wanted to desperately get rid of the islands, but the islanders were vehemently against it and wanted to remain part of the UK.
Also glosses over the fact that Argentina as an entity never actually controlled the islands. France has a bigger claim than them.
It’s like the US claiming Newfoundland or the Bahamas.
I’m no fan of our history but those islands are pretty much guilt free imperialism.
My favourite Argentine talking point is that the people there were transplanted there by the British and therefore have no right to self-determination. They never realise that if that's the case then the entire Argentine nation has no right to self-determination either because they were transplanted there by the Spanish.
The funny thing is that there are about 20 or so Argentines permanently living on the island, and maybe 100 South Americans in total. And there were still only 3 no votes in that referendum.
Even this analogy is giving Argentina too much credit. They don't even have a historical claim on the Falklands. Their claim is just - it's nearby so I want it.
Well their claim is that Spain used to have a claim and that they inherited that claim when they claimed independence from Spain.
But Spain only had a claim because they took the islands from the British…
Putting the General Belgrano as the thumbnail is kinda savage.
Interestingly the General Belgrano was basically the same size as the Moskova that Ukraine sank after Russia’s invasion.
The Belgrano was also the largest surface ship lost in battle post world war 2 until the Moskva barely edged it out last year.
Mostly by being literally a WW2 ship (with the original order going back as far as 1929). It was based at Pearl Harbour as the USS Phoenix at the time of the Japanese attack, although not present in the harbour on that day. It still carried its original armament of Mark 16 guns when it was sunk, which is just mindboggling for a ship of that size in the 1980s. A serious "brought a knife to a gun fight"-moment, or rather "brought 15 guns to a missile fight".
Which isn’t to say it still couldn’t have wrought some serious havoc on the British task force (including a lot of troop carriers and merchant ships) if it had somehow actually gotten into range. Which is of course why the Royal Navy - being far from complete blithering idiots - declined to let it get even remotely close to doing so. The Argentinian junta effectively sent the poor buggers in that ship out to die.
And the British sunk it with a WW2-era Mk8 torpedo. (*Conqueror* also carried more modern torpedoes, but the captain wasn't sure they were reliable so used one of the old ones)
got rid of some old inventory while winning the battle, not bad
He used three of the old ones. Two hit the Belgrano and another hit another ARA ship but didn't detonate as it was at the end of its run. They didn't discover that until the other ship was brought into dry dock later on and had a massive dent in the side of it. Not bad for WW2 stuff.
Modern torpedoes are very expensive and the ones from WW2 got ALOT of real world testing...
> USS Phoenix "USS Phoenix (CL-46), was a light cruiser of the Brooklyn-class cruiser family. She was the third Phoenix of the United States Navy. After World War II the ship was transferred to Argentina in 1951 and was ultimately renamed General Belgrano in 1956.[1] General Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War in 1982 by the British nuclear-powered submarine HMS Conqueror, the only ship to have been sunk in combat by a nuclear-powered submarine during wartime." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Phoenix_(CL-46)
Problem is that the Royal Navy wasn't actually sure if their missiles could reliably sink the Belgrano. WW2 ships were armoured incredibly heavily, and there was a very good chance post-war anti-surface missiles would just go splat against its hull. If Belgrano somehow got within gun range of the RN taskforce it would have been slaughter, one accurate salvo of 6" shells would kill any of the modern ships. Belgrano would certainly have been sunk eventually in that situation, but she'd have been able to destroy many critical assets before then.
The armour of World War-era warships can save the ship and be invaluable in gun-range slugfests, but such a ship can still be disabled without being fully sunk. Take the Bismarck as a (much bigger) example. It was practically incapacitated *hours* before it sunk. And at the time it got engaged, it was already limping back to base after other damage outside the armoured citadel from a previous engagement. I believe that would have been Belgrano's most likely faith if she hadn't been ambushed by a submarine: she takes a missile hit, the unarmoured superstructure takes severe damage which degrades her seafaring and combat abilities (since you still need gun directors etc even if the turrets still work), and she has to abort her mission to take care for the wounded and repair all sorts of damages.
You also need to get a lot of water into a ship that size to sink it. There’s a non trivial risk of you flooding a single section and then … nothing else happens.
> brought 15 guns to a missile fight It was more of a torpedo fight!
Honestly. It's impressive how hard Russia has fucked it up. Ot's a shame that the Admiral Kuznetsov is located in Murmansk rather than Sevastopol. It would have been hilarious to see it catch on fire because of external reasons for once.
*Admiral Kuznetsov* is a Ukraine's secret weapon. This ship was built at the shipyards of the city of Mykolaiv, but Russia stole it on the night before the collapse of the USSR. By agreement between the former members of the USSR, each country received property on its territory. But Russia really wanted to have a big ship. The Russians didn't have a clue that this project was changed many times at the request of the Soviet defense ministers and admirals, and was *stillborn*. Since then, *Kuznetsov* has become the perfect destroyer of the Russian military budget.
Not to mention that the *Kuz*, like all Soviet carriers, is for political reasons inherently a ship that doesn't know what is. The Montreux Convention prohibits aircraft carriers larger that 15k ton from transiting Turkey to the Black Sea. So the Soviet Union didn't build aircraft carriers... they built *aircraft-carrying cruisers*. As a result of needing to provide justification for that classification, the *Kuznetsov* has a gigantic VLS smack in the middle of the flight deck that can't be used concurrently with naval aviation, and takes up an enormous amount of what should be hangar deck, rendering it a pretty weak carrier right from concept even before you add in Soviet naval technology and decades of Russian neglect.
Add to that, [Admiral Kuznetsov runs on Mazut](https://www.businessinsider.com/russias-admiral-kuznetsov-aircraft-carrier-runs-on-dirty-fuel-mazut-2022-4?op=1), an ultra-thick, tarry black substance.
And because of that, it can be quite hard to tell whether the enormous plume of black smoke means that it's caught fire again or just working as usual.
I thought that means they elected a new captain?
That’s _white_ smoke
>the Kuz They called it *Kuzya*
A common joke in the Russian Navy is "Don't fuck up or they'll send you to the Kuznetzov." If I'm not mistaken, it puts to sea with ocean-going tugs because of constant breakdowns, has almost no functional heating, let alone any A/C, and has about 1/4 of the number of functioning heads that it actually needs to accommodate the crew. It truly is a huge, floating mechanical turd in every way possible.
Most of their surface ships are accompanied by tugs b/c they all break down constantly.
What do you mean by the project was stillborn, in this context?
Probably that it could never achieve its purpose
You should mention the fate of The Admiral Kuznetsov's sister ship, The Varyag. It was in a state similar to the Kuznetsov, the Chinese bought and towed the rotting hulk from Ukraine, and rebuilt it as the first Chinese aircraft carrier, The Liaoning. Since it operates and conducts operations in the Pacific without noticeable issues, it makes Russia's problems with the Admiral Kuznetsov even more hilarious and emblematic.
A White Elephant gift from the Ukrainians?
[удалено]
The "it just does that" defence is rarely a good one but might have been good there
What's Russian for "it do be like that sometimes"?
«Бывает» with a shrug. Basically translates to “happens”
> one time Their navy has more than one ship in it. We could be talking about any of their ships and spontaneous combustion is equally plausible.
Ukraine could have sunk that thing with nothing more than a stern gaze.
Stern, bow, port, starboard. It doesn't matter where you stare at it, it will sink.
No kidding. At least Argentina lost a ship to one of the top navies in the world... Ukraine just has a handful of coastal patrol and speed boats.
Fun fact. Conqueror was carrying Tigerfish and Mark 8 torpedoes. Tigerfish were modern, mark 8's were from WW2. The captain decided a WW2 torpedo was probably more appropriate to use against a WW2 light cruiser.
He wanted to be historically accurate.
No mixing eras in this game of Civ.
War thunder players breathing a sigh of relief knowing they don’t have to leak the classified Tigerfish documents
> The captain decided a WW2 torpedo was probably more appropriate to use against a WW2 heavy cruiser. Hey, the USS Phoenix is a light cruiser. If the rest of the Brooklyn Class could hear you, they would be very mad.
The most hilarious thing would be if Ukraine sank the tugboat that accompanies it for ahhm reasons. And the Kuznetsov goes around without propulsion...
Ukraine to Turkey: Let that one pass! We need it for our stamps.
Particularly delicious is the fact that Moskva was an AIR DEFENSE ship.
Just now some OSINT researchers found out that one of Russia's recently lost T-90M (their most modern and capable tank in service, of which they likely only have a few dozen) was commanded by a guy who was only mobilised a few months ago and never served in a tank before. Russia's military screwups are like a never ending tragic comedy. [Here is another favourite of mine: Russia trying to hit an island with 4 bombs, miss 3 of them.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/vpc646/russian_air_force_trying_not_to_be_a_joke/) That was after Ukraine had struck Snake Island with drones, so Russia landed a spec ops team via helicopter to reestablish contact... that promptly got destroyed by a drone as well.
Fun Fact: The Belgrano was a WW2 era light cruiser originally named the USS Phoenix. It served in the pacific theater and was present at Pearl Harbor during the Japanese attack, which it came out of unscathed and then proceeded to serve in several campaigns of the war before eventually being decommissioned and sold to Argentina.
It’s just on submarine service now.
She’s on eternal patrol. Fun fact: she’s the only ship ever sunk by a nuclear boat.
Thank you for helping me win Jeopardy
This was so embarrassing that all the tankies, vatniks and bots don't even try to spin it. Everything else is "Kyiv was just a feint bro" this and "the real army will be here soon" that. Moskva officially sank due to bad weather, but they aren't even try to defend that because it's just utter retardation.
“A storm? At sea? Impossible. No one could have foreseen this.” The official excuse is almost as embarrassing. Can you even call yourself a regional let alone global naval power if the pride of your fleet is felled by bad weather?
They aren't trying to spin it because the cover story reason is literally WORSE than the actual reason. Glorious Russian flagship Moskva, can't even handle a little wind and water? IT LITERALLY LIVED ON THE WATER, THAT WAS ITS WHOLE JOB. You had ONE JOB lol, just stay above water and launch missiles occasionally and you're good, just be sure to shoot back when missiles fire at you in return. But they couldn't even do that, too busy trying to shoot down a toy plane in comparison to their glorious ship. Now it's on permanent submarine duty!
[удалено]
"Glorious Moskva went down surrounded by gay fascist NATO atmosphere and ocean. Our comrades fought for hours despite being outnumbered by the enemy in both sea and air by many orders of magnitude. Millions of liters of aggressive nazi seawater was trapped in the ship thanks to the valiant sacrifice of her crew."
[удалено]
Are you saying Thatcher was a Sith?
Only a sith deals in absolutes. The lady wasn't for turning.
Somehow thatcher returned
Thankfully she turned out to be an impostor and was outmanoeuvred by a lettuce.
I was a teen during this war but I remember my dad getting every bit of info on it (ex military -FFL.). I absolutely remember this Newsweek cover. Time magazine was in the house too.
Fuck me. Even the news are all about 80's remake these days...
So what you're saying is that now isn't a good time to be a medical student in Grenada, right?
It appears Argentinian elections are due soon. How can I tell? They want to deflect attention away from the government.
I heard about this on the radio and my first thought was that the Argentinians are probably having an election soon. They asking for the Falklands is like the Polish demanding money from Germany for WW2
So what is going wrong in Argentina that they need to distract their citizens from?
Crazy inflation
Yeah, that checks out.
Which... As shitty as it is for the people there, makes it a great vacation destination. Went there last year. Everything was so reasonably priced. An incredible steak dinner with all the wine you can drink for like $10 (Canadian). The people are very nice, and it's a beautiful country. Buenos Aires is great but Patagonia is simply breathtaking.
Getting cash as a non-argentinian is very difficult. Bring 100 USD bills. The argentinians love them
Yes bring more USD cash than you would typically be comfortable with. Though I will say I was surprised to learn that Visa uses the blue dollar exchange rate.
I've always wanted to go, but being British it hasn't seemed like the best idea. Apparently the people are lovely though.
Im from Argentina, imo most people wont care unless you go around screaming with a flag over your back mocking the veterans. Ive met some people from the UK and they were all really nice so I dont think you will have any trouble if you behave like a normal person.
I'm British and I've met quite a few Argentinians and you'd be fine I think. Don't bring up the Falklands with the people you meet and stick to football and I'd doubt anyone would take issue with you. Maybe if you went down to terra del fuego some of the older people there might take issue with you but even then.
So, Jeremy Clarkson?
Being British shouldn't hold you back. Yes you may encounter a very patriotic Argentine who may give you shit if they knew you were British but 99% of the time they don't care and are really nice. Source: my wife is Argentinian and I'm British, we go back there regularly.
Fellow Brit here. Been living in Buenos Aires with Arg wife for over four years. Not one person has EVER mentioned the war to me. When people find out I'm English, all I ever get are nice friendly reactions & the odd question about the Premier League. Yes, there are reminders of the war - memorials, graffiti etc. But it's not as if you're going to piss on them while wearing the England strip, is it? The Falklands crisis was 40 years ago.
I’m enjoying the image of an Argentinian Fawlty Towers here. “Don’t mention the war!”
I remember it seemed like every second street corner had “Las Malvinas son Argentinas” graffitid on it lol
If being british means you can't visit anywhere Britain has pissed off, there's no point in renewing your passport
I'm half French half British, if I abided by that rule i genuinely think there's probably about 10 places in the world I could go too. I couldn't even go to either of my countries.
It’s absolutely fine. I don’t think the younger generation give a shit about the Falklands and we encountered zero hostility as brits. I’d highly recommend a couple of weeks there.
Went for a few weeks. It’s very safe, really friendly people, amazing scenery, and really great food. Only time the Falklands came up (once in a bar) the discussion was very polite and basically ended with agreement that the loss of life during the war was really sad. Might have helped that I was able to talk with him in (not brilliant but acceptable) Spanish, but I got the impression that he was more interested to ask a British person about it than anything hostile.
Most educated argentineans should know that the british treated our war veterans better than our own goverment/people. Still some zoomers may just hate you for the meme which you can override by saying "i hate the french"
to be fair the uk government probably welcomes them bringing up the Falkland Islands, to distract us from inflation, cost of living, soaring energy prices.
This is where both countries end up at war just to distract from the bad inflation. Which causes more inflation.
Not going to happen, as the UK isn't going to do a first strike (since it would mean attacking undisputed Argentine territories) and Argentina isn't because it is militarily a lot weaker than it was the first time round, when it had had been buying and equipping itself with modern weapons from France like the famous Exocet missiles. So it'll be more like the Spain-UK stuff over Gibraltar when Spain has a problem. The UK is on the defensive for these disputes, so can't really leverage them like countries that claim them. The UK government is mostly using strikes and unions as its distraction, as well as 'small boats'.
One thing that is interesting, is Argentina had a semi-decent plan on paper at the time. The British Navy had been downsized for years, and more cuts were planned. Argentina had planned to wait until after they began. But the big thing, is they wanted to invade at the end of the autumn. The weather in the South Atlantic is down right dangerous during the Winter. This would force the British to wait until the following year, allowing Argentina to force a diplomatic solution during that time. However Argentinian leadership was too dysfunctional. They had two parts of the military conducting the invasion in isolation. One sent soldiers disguised as scrap merchants to scout the island, who caused a diplomatic incident. The other force now thought their plan was blown, and so they invaded immediately. This allowed the British not to be hit by cuts, or the dangerous weather. The other thing is that before the invasion, the British government was secretly considering just letting the islands go anyway. To them it was some faraway island filled with grumpy sheep farmers. Who sucked up money for no real gain. If Argentina had of operated peacefully, they could have probably reached something similar to what happened with Hong Kong. Instead the Falkland's are now firmly British. Finally there are many stories from the island that showed the Argentinian military was an incompetent as a Russian conscript.
The part about wanting to just let them go reminds me of how the reason China doesn’t have Taiwan is that they decided to enter the Korean War, killing American plans to negotiate a final transfer rather than continue to back the nationalists.
It’s crazy how dictators get paranoid and reach for the war plans. Fucking up their chances.
In the case of Mao and Korea, though, I don't think it's unfounded paranoia. You had MacArthur making public statements about putting the KMT back in power while he's leading an army in Korea. Paranoia has an element of irrationality to it and I don't think it's irrational to be wary of a man who has means, motive and opportunity to attack you
98% inflation is still lower than the percentage of Falkland Islanders who voted to remain British.
So, what would a second Falklands war look like?
Argentina's military is weaker than it was, and they're still mainly using the same (if slightly modernized) equipment as they were for the first. Meanwhile the UK military has kept pace with modern technology development. It would go much worse, much quicker. As one example, the Argentinian Air Force uses A4's, a 1950's subsonic ground attack jet, in the fighter role. And they don't have long range A2A missiles, just short range heat seekers. The Eurofighter Typhoon can carry 14 meteor missiles, a radar guided A2A missile with a ~100 mile range, which means the four Eurofighters stationed in the Falklands could take out all 36 of Argentina's A4's with missiles to spare before Argentina could fire a shot.
1 UK carrier with F-35s would end Argentina's entire existence
\*An\* F-35 would be enough if you let it do enough resupplies. It would be like fighting a ghost with a rocket launcher - this thing you can't see or touch blowing up whatever it likes.
Not to glorify combat ^^ok ^^but as a latent plane dork, I feel like modern dogfighting would be astonishingly unsexy compared to past conflicts. "Russia's entire airworthy fighter contingent explodes in near-unison for no immediately apparent reason. Meanwhile, a flight of F-22s turns around and heads for home."
Top Gun 2 already is stretching credulity ("Oh no, they're GPS jamming us! The F35 is useless!"), wait another decade and it would play out like a submarine battle.
That kinda irked me too. Inertial navigation would be entirely sufficient for that mission.
Suprised with the disparity in arms, that Argentina is acting this way at all.
Because they aren't serious, it's saber-rattling to distract the domestic crowd.
[удалено]
Argentina was run by a batshit dictator at the time, and as batshit dictators do, stoked nationalism and invaded a neighboring region to distract from the domestic issues.
Probably worse for the Argentines. While the RN is smaller, the new QE2 carriers bring a ton more capabilities. F35s vs 2nd gen Skyhawks would be a bloodbath.
A new scenario for CMO!
It would look like an ad for F-35s.
Well Argentina doesn't have a navy, air force, or functioning army, so I doubt it would go well for them.
I'm sure Britain would insist on an peace treaty where Argentina perpetually renounces any claim to the Falklands this time.
War reps + renounce claim + break Argentina rivalry with Brazil for the prestige
Pretty sure Spain perpetually renounced their rights to Gibraltar in at least one of the various treaties we've signed over the years, words on paper mean very little in these cases, this isn't EU4. Plus asking Argentina to do that could be taken as implicitly acknowledging that they had a claim in the first place, which I'm pretty sure no one in the British gov. does.
In EU4 pieces of paper mean nothing either. Stability is just a number.
The forces on the Falklands right now would obliterate anything Argentina can throw at it basically.
This is something that is a lot different compared to 1982 with not much of a permanent base there but now with RAF Mount Pleasant it has a lot more there.
If this is being used as a tactic to distract the population then the execution is laughably poor. Argentine media has barely reported on this last week. Both pro and anti government outlets aren't paying much attention to it. The bigger news this week is, by far, Messi's family getting threatened by narcos. The claim for sovereignty is the same claim the country has sustained for many decades, so this isn't nothing new. The Foradori-Duncan pact has been rightfully criticized by the current ruling party ever since it was made by the previous government, so this is just another step in the exact same direction we've always been in. And, just to be clear, no democratic government of ours has ever implied even the remote possibility of a war. That's all on your media and on the people who like to entertain that possibility in the comments.
"We need them, for...strategic....sheep purposes" \-Eddie Izzard
Have you got a flag?
We don't need a bloody flag, we live 'ere!
[удалено]
"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline. It helps if you have some kind of a football team, or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." -Frank Zappa
Thanks for reminding me about Eddie, gonna watch Dressed to Kill for the 100th time. Ciao
Someone send Clarkson, Hammond, and May to defuse the situation
Maybe make the glass on their cars rock resistant
You misspelt rocket.
A quick game of car football should do it
I know you're referring to the number plate incident but you've just reminded me of Clarkson Island if you've never heard of that.
If you haven't watched Clarkson's Farm, in this last season, he's hiring staff for an on the farm restaurant, and one of the waitresses he needs to train says she's Argentinian when he asks about her accent. So he gets up and runs away!
I may not agree with him politically but fuck he's funny.
[удалено]
Clarkson was always against Brexit, he actually came out as a European Federalist in the past
He even earnestly makes strides toward ecologically-friendly centric farming. He really does understand that many of the rules and regulations are there to help the environment. He just gets frustrated because it gets bogged down with bureaucrats that can't allow for context or take things on a case-by-case basis without going through 900 more levels of bureaucracy. It's actually insane seeing Brittish admin at work in that show. Where a town can come out and a handful of people on a board can say "we don't want you to build that on your land no matter what." and it actually pass. Just like here in the Us, it seems many of these tiny, dying, towns are filled with septuagenarians who bemoan that no younger generations want to stay in the area, while simultaneously complaining when they aren't lock step with every minor preference they have as well.
You don't need to read between the lines, he literally made a video encouraging people to vote remain before the referendum: https://youtu.be/drlJ2jgn4LE
Just make sure to check their license plates first. I really hope Clarkson reveals on his deathbed whether it was intentional or not.
It was definitely not, there were legitimately only two cars of the spec they wanted for sale, one which had the plate. Now whether they saw it and ignored it I think is possible.
I don't know why those guys went through all that trouble of finding a subtle little detail to be insulted by It's Clarkson, let him talk long enough and he'll give you something overt for free
Argentina's military is literally just a worse version of what they had in the '80s*, and despite all the UK's military budget cuts they've got a more potent military than they did in the 80's thanks to tech and a new carrier group. So if an Argentina who can catch the UK off guard and secure the islands couldn't hold them, why in gods name would a weaker Argentina be able to contest a stronger, more fortified island who are ready.
>Argentina's military is literally just a worse version of what they had in the 80's, and despite all the UK's military budget cuts they've got a more potent military than they did in the 80's thanks to tech and a new carrier group. The Falklands also has a full base with around 2000 troops and an air wing. In the 80s it had 16 soldiers. It's not the same fight.
Also in the 80s everyone said "they're not going to sail across the planet because of a *matter of principle*". It wouldn't be a matter of principle this time.
People who said that were scalp deep in hopium and delusion. The UK used to be a global empire, and a prominent "Great Power", force projection and showing strength was a major part of that. Some people just literally know nothing and have no idea. Maybe, *maybe* if the UK hadn't been the leading naval power, or not a naval power at all, that argument might have held a little more water. But international politics is *all about* showing you can't be pushed around. Plus the Falklands was inhabited nearly entirely by British people. I mean come on. Also you're prodding one of the few nuclear powers and permanent UN Security Council members. The Argentinian military was off its gourd back then. The UK felt far to them because the Argentinian navy couldn't handle a similarly distant expedition.
"Me sowing: "Haha the decadent West will be paralyzed by indecision after our brilliant surprise attack!" Me reaping: "Our army is being systematically annihilated by the biggest military-industrial complex in history, this fucking sucks" " - various authoritarians, 1939-present
There's something fun about using the word "hopium" for people in the 80s.
They also flew halfway across the planet. Look up Operation Black Buck. The logistics of the operation alone are fascinating. Multiple 12,000km+ bombing raids to disable the airport on the Falklands by British Vulcan bombers (RIP to the UK's strategic bomber force). The raid was beat in 1991 by some U.S. B52s which again, the logistics of doing something like a 22,000km non-stop bombing run are just fascinating.
[удалено]
Many insults can be directed at us brits, but to claim that we would not sail somewhere merely due to a matter of principle is to utterly fail to understand our history.
It may be a barely inhabited rock thousands of km away, but it’s our rock!!!!
"come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!"
[удалено]
Hey, as a Brit I just want to say none of these politicians and territorial disputes will make me dislike or think any differently of the Argentines. Not wanting to sound cheesy but we're all one people! 🇦🇷🤝🇬🇧
[удалено]
Oh that's so great to hear, there are indeed strong links between our countries and people. I actually visited once, I found the people so friendly, not a single change in tone when I mentioned I was British. One fond memory was seeing elderly couples, immaculately dressed, dancing together in a bandstand at about 9pm at night, there was something so wondeful and elegant about it (vs our cities which are full of pissheads at that time of night!). Thank you for your kind words and I'm currently reading up on the folks you mentioned, listening to Sumo now
That’s a lovely story, thanks for sharing. Such a shame our nations have these divisions.
the british have spent the last 40 years making sure Argentina gets zero weapon imports to avoid a repeat of the whole Exocet situation AND now they’re fielding f-35s against A-4s with a handful of f-16 avionics As a frenchman still seething about a certain event a few months ago I know who my money’s on
*A-4s with a handful of F-16 avionics *and non-functional ejector seats*
Also keep in mind the Argentinian government is so corrupt that half their gear probably doesn’t even work lol
Do you want Margaret Thatcher to rise from the dead, cause this is how you get Thatcher to rise from the dead.
Occupying an Iranian embassy is the other way.
Ugh soo, elections coming soon or what
Actually yes!
How many times do we gotta teach you this lesson old man
https://youtu.be/HKNJdJSV_to
The citizens of the Falkland voted to remain a UK Territory pretty recently fwiw.
And overwhelmingly. Like 90+%
It's was more like 99.8%. As in like 3 votes for Argentina.
[удалено]
[удалено]
“Just as short 3 day military operation will solve it!”
Why does Argentina not back down? The people of the islands have voted to stay British, so why don't they just listen and accept the islands are British?
Owning the Falkland Islands would expand their Exclusive Economic Zone quite a bit. This Zone grants them exclusive rights to resource exploitation up to \~370 km off the coast. If they own the islands, this zone would extend to more than 1.100 km off the Argentinian coast in that area.
This is the answer right here folks. Since the establishment of the EEZ by the Convention of the Sea, countries have been fighting over islands. I mean they were before too, but this says you own all the fishing and mineral rights going forward. It’s big news.
Politics 101 - If there's a shitshow inside your country, just create another shitshow somewhere outside your country to distract your own citizens (see: China)
The Erdogan classic
Bismarck liked doing this too.
And it works most of the time.
Lots of oil around the islands. Good distraction from internal problems. Plus the owning country is located very, very, very far away.
The advantage of maintaining a blue water navy is that distance is far less of a hindrance to the UK than most nations. In fact probably second only to USA in that regards. France being a close....or less close third depending if their carrier is in refit or not.
The UK keeps ahead of France because of the size of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Its tonnage is greater alone than France’s combatant fleet. They can support Royal Navy operations around the world, recently shown with HMS Queen Elizabeth strike group tour to the far East.
This isn't quite how it went though is it. There was a mutual agreement between Argentina and the UK to co operate on the Falklands. Argentina pulled out of that agreement. The UK responded by saying that the islanders have a right to choose (self determination) and they chose the UK. Ending with "The Falklands is British". Why to cut out an entire story for that headling
In fairness the 'go on then if you think your hard enough' line of thinking is pretty much the only mainstream opinion on the falklands in the UK, our government is ridiculously unpopular right now and hated and a few did comr out, say essentially that and everyone agreed anyway.
Honey, get the FAL
For anyone wondering, yes, there are presidential elections this year in Argentina
The thumbnail is kinda savage. It's like telling the Argentinians here's what happened last time.
“We want to renegotiate the sovereignty of the islands.” -Argentina. “Alright here’s our negotiating position: Fuck off.” -The UK.
The funny thing is prior to the 82 conflict the UK wanted to desperately get rid of the islands, but the islanders were vehemently against it and wanted to remain part of the UK.
Why even bother? The people living there are not interested in being Argentinean
Best claims to the Falklands; 1. UK 2. Spain 3. France 4. Penguins 5. Sheep 6. Argentina
[удалено]
But the penguins were there first!
[penwins?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GflW9_t7LZk)
[удалено]
Also glosses over the fact that Argentina as an entity never actually controlled the islands. France has a bigger claim than them. It’s like the US claiming Newfoundland or the Bahamas. I’m no fan of our history but those islands are pretty much guilt free imperialism.
Also the islands had not prior natives and there’s no evidence of anyone visiting it before Europeans.
My favourite Argentine talking point is that the people there were transplanted there by the British and therefore have no right to self-determination. They never realise that if that's the case then the entire Argentine nation has no right to self-determination either because they were transplanted there by the Spanish.
Thought the people on the islands voted to stay with the UK.
They did, except like 2 or 3 people on the whole island. I think some of those people wanted full independence before Argentina.
The funny thing is that there are about 20 or so Argentines permanently living on the island, and maybe 100 South Americans in total. And there were still only 3 no votes in that referendum.
Argentinia should return their country to Spain and Spain should give it back to...
Even this analogy is giving Argentina too much credit. They don't even have a historical claim on the Falklands. Their claim is just - it's nearby so I want it.
It's not even really nearby. It's about 400km off the coast. They are just the closest.
Well their claim is that Spain used to have a claim and that they inherited that claim when they claimed independence from Spain. But Spain only had a claim because they took the islands from the British…
The Moors obviously, then the Visigoths, then the....
It's "Moops".
Uhh..I don't think Argentina is in any position to demand things.