"Could Argentina take the Falklands? " Topic

Agree with you Gary.
War between our countries is nonsense.
We could continue talking by diplomacy for decades with no harm.
At the end, I hope we could made a joint venture.

But about darthfozzywig yust said ("Now THAT is something to wargame…") allow me to said that it would be more interesting if the Mercosur decided to participate, specially our Brazilian brothers (which would accepted one of the Islands with great satisfaction or a joint government pointing to the Antartic).
That's would be a very interesting wargame.
By the way, one of my grandfathers was British and my mother is a James (I had a cousin from England here in the forum).

Amicalement
Armand

I agree with you both, especially you Armand, as I know you've seen the results of such militaristic idiocy at first hand. There isn't a cat in hell's chance of this happening at the moment unless other Mercosur countries stick their noses in.

However, I have to disagree that both sides' politicians have been making matters worse. British politicians have been remarkably restrained, considering the threatening rhetoric coming from Argentina. I also disagree that there needs to be any sort of joint enterprise – the Falkland Islanders and Britain owe Argentina nothing. Indeed, to their eternal credit, the Falklands Government offered a share of the rights to oil in the waters between the islands and Argentina, but this offer was rebuffed, as Kerschner's view was that she owns it all.

The pattern has been Kerschner making stupid, jingoistic, populist speeches to deflect public attention away from her political inadequacies, followed by equally weak politicians in other Mercosur countries seeking cheap populism for similar reasons. The thick end of the British press then takes this as a threat, backed up by certain quarters who see it as a convenient argument against defence cuts and launch a series of rants in the papers.

Now that oil has been found, the rhetoric has been racked up another notch and Mercosur has declared an illegal blockade of Falklands-registered ships. There is no way that our politicians can not respond to that.

No. British military planners having assessed that a reasonable show of firepower and early warning systems would deter another invasion. Even if the political climate in Argentina was so volatile to attempt such an endeavour,the Argentine military would not be able to sustain the loss of assets to mount a successful operation.

This topic makes for an interesting alternative history scenario, lets pray that the politiciams, financiers and the press keep it that way.

Good to see Phalanx fitted to the Type 45s, but incredible that they are 'fitted for, but not with' Tomahawks and Harpoons.

Tomahawks? I think not as the Sylver VLS will not take a Tomahawk. I suppose they could scavenge an ABL or two for Tomahawks, but unless the French manage to get the SCALP EG ready Daring is an air defense boat. The French have only begun that project so it's years away at best.

i don't think the Argentinians have upgraded their air force much since 1982, so any attempt to retake the Falklands would be a turkey shoot against mdoern kit.

Can't see how any invasion force would get to the Islands given the state of the Navy.

As for covert operations on the ground… the commandoes would hve to be very good.

The falklands isn't the kind of terrain to go blundering around in – and Spanish speakers (or indeed any strangers) will stand out a mile.

And in any kind of tense situation I assume the most likely landing points will be watched.

The Falklands Defence Force is a very different organisation these days I think… only a company in strength but they do know the ground.

The Falklands Defence Force is a very different organisation- armed with the Steyr AUG ! They rejected the SA80 !

Who makes British looking infantry with Steyr AUG? I remember being very confused by a picture of current FIDF trainning.

and these are even more worrying…should deter any invader

"The US is a good deal less friendly with the current Argentine government than in 1982. Any calculation by the Argentine government as to risk probably has to consider a best case of active, early and vigorous US material assistance all the way up to a possibility of the US as a co-belligerent with the UK. ( not ground troops but a CVBG seconded to the RN )".

While true, our current president is also quite anti-UK as well, so I doubt they would provide much, if any assistance to the British, or the Falkland Islanders. They also seem to be on the wrong side of issues pertaining to South and Central America, e.g. the Honduran ouster issue.

So, the 2012 election may have represussions for more than the USA's citizens.

The key quesion is – do you think that the Falkland Islanders should determine their own future through a free and democratic vote?

I hear that last time the question was asked, the islanders voted to stay part of the UK with a 99+% majority, the only guy who voted against doing it for a bet!

The real question is – how can the Argentinians make it more attractive for the islanders to be their colony rather than the UK's colony. As far as I can see they can't so morally the UK is in the right. Argentina and UK were traditionally quite close, there was an Argentinian volunteer RAF Sqn during WW2 for example, so we really don't want to have to defeat tham again.

But we will if we have to.

(anything else would be political suicide for the ruling administration of the day of course)

Prince Rupert – your best chance might be to find some Australians as they use the Steyr. Eureka would be your best bet but the kit is a bit different.

Mark, you had wrote: "you've seen the results of such militaristic idiocy at first hand"
Yes, but I change the "idiocy" by War Crime!.
What those… f… b… Generals had made with us was a crime. Send teenagers with equipment from the 70's to a real war against one of the first military powers lying us untill the last moment, and worst, leaving us to our fate in the moment of danger had no other calification.
We know that here, in my country.
So, that will never happen again.
That's why war had not a chance.
And both countries are natural Allied, so no way with a armed conflict.
But, as I had said, if we talked about a wargame it would be very interesting.

Amicalement
Armand

dragon6

That was taken from Wiki. No idea on the validity of it.

Does seem short-sighted not to give them any sort of anti-shipping or land-strike capability, especially given that the RN is now so small that ships must be increasingly jacks-of-all-trades.

Interesting that the Falklands Defence Force got to select a different rifle from those troops they'll be serving alongside.
Does anyone know who made this call and when? Are they not on the strength of the British army? One assumes they are funded by the British tax-payer, rather than the Falkland Islands Government?

The FIDF is funded and equipped by the Falkland Islands Government and consequently has a lot of say in what it uses, though it clearly makes sense for them to fit as closely as possible with the British Army/Royal Marines in order to maintain inter-operability. Remember that the British Army has itself used various esoteric rifles over the years alongside L1A1 SLR & L85 variants, including the M16, so it doesn't cause to many problems provided they use the same ammunition. I went on a mountain leader course with an FIDF officer some years ago and he told me that the AUG was up against the L85A1 in a trial to decide what would replace the SLR in the FIDF. The AUG proved to be more reliable than the L85A1 and was half the price (see the recent SA80/M16 thread)!

R Mark Davis

Very interesting indeed. I am astounded that a population of (from memory) 2000 people – many of whom are crofters – can fund a force of a 100 men, though? Wiki confirms their annual budget of GBP400k, which comes entirely from the Falklands Government – though does the Falklands Government receive funding from the UK? ie. is the UK not indirectly funding the FIDF?

Tango01

I thank you for your input and find your posts some of the most interesting in the thread.
While you come across as having a very realistic / sensible view of the situation (ie. no one wants another war), do you think that large numbers of your countrymen share your outlook?
Or are the Falklands still something which many Argentinians find highly emotive and worth going to war over?

"though does the Falklands Government receive funding from the UK? ie. is the UK not indirectly funding the FIDF?"

I seem to remember when I was on tour down there in 1993 a large sum of money or around $25 USDm was raised fomr fishing/exploration rights

The French name of these islands: "iles Malouines" means that they truly belong to the town of Saint-Malo, in Brittany (France).

Unfortunately the Navy of this town is not very big now: one Customs small patrol boat, and two replicas of 18th century warships. I am not sure it is strong enough to fight all the forces you guys are talking about on both sides :-(

Patrice

Another few years, and Saint-Malo's navy should be able to take on what ever's left of the RN…

For all the various paranoids that doubt the commitment of the US to it's UK allies… please tell me the last time the US refused a request for defensive assistance from the UK?

The President really has very limited power, even if he would refuse such a request (he wouldn't).
-Kle.

Kle,

That must be why a US Carrier Group was steaming south in 1982. Oh, hang on…

I doubt that the US would ever get directly involved in a war over the Falklands unless US interests were directly threatened, though Venezuela's involvement would probably tip the balance.

The Reagan administration provided very useful diplomatic, intelligence and logistical support in 1982, but I can't see the current administration doing even that. Clinton's actions thus far have bordered on tacit support for the Argentine claim.

I'd also cite the example of Belize in the 1970s – the country (which was still a British colony but was about to become an independent democracy) was directly threatened by US ally Guatemala. The Guats moved formations up to the border and Guatemalan P-51s intruded into Belizean airspace. The single company of British troops in the country couldn't hope to defend the place, so Ark Royal was ordered west to mount a show of strength. Far from supporting the UK in its defence of its territory, the USA refused permission for RN aircraft to pass through its airspace… There was no way to avoid US airspace, so the RN Buccaneers entered it anyway and the USAF attempted (unsuccessfully) to intercept them!

Bulldog – the Falkland Islands are loaded with cash (and there are I think 3000 of them now).

They make a fortune from fishing rights (mostly squid, more than enough to fund a company of light infantry.

And later this year they start getting oil revenues – I'm guessing the Argentinian government is regretting an offer to share those.

The Argentinian attitude does of course mean that any chance they had of making money from offering facilities to oil workers has gone down the tubes – rather short-sighted I'd say.

As for the Steyr AUG, does it work better in low temperatures? Just a thought but the Austrians must know a thing or two about fighting in the cold.

Clinton's actions thus far have bordered on tacit support for the Argentine claim.

Which might be (foolish) pandering for Central/South American ears, even if the administration knows full well that it wouldn't condone an Argentine military bid to take the islands.

The problem with that, of course, is that the Argentine government might not grasp that it's just for public consumption.

Much like the (first) Bush administration's signal that we would not get involved in the border/oil dispute between Iraq and Kuwait in 1990. Saddam misinterpreted "you guys need to work it out on your own" as "sure, why not invade – we won't care."

Tomahawks? I think not as the Sylver VLS will not take a Tomahawk.

Tomahawk can be mounted in modular box launchers on deck. That's what we did on the Iowas.
-Kle.

That must be why a US Carrier Group was steaming south in 1982. Oh, hang on…

I think you are being a tiny bit harsh there. Although the US did have to tread a delicate diplomatic path between two of its staunchest allies. In practical terms the RN were given immediate access to the latest version of the AIM9 Sidewinder missile (and other military stores IIRC.)

"And later this year they start getting oil revenues – I'm guessing the Argentinian government is regretting an offer to share those.

The Argentinian attitude does of course mean that any chance they had of making money from offering facilities to oil workers has gone down the tubes – rather short-sighted I'd say."
Very, Argentina could have hoovered up very a lucrative line in providing support facilities given that its unlikely that the Falklands could support much and everything has to be imported including the workforce. Given the choice I suspect most operating oil companies would have preferred nice big offices on the mainland (and where they go the contractors follow). Seems a first class case of cutting one's nose off to spite your face.

Kle,

That must be why a US Carrier Group was steaming south in 1982. Oh, hang on…

My understanding and memory is that Ronnie offered, and Maggie declined. I know we offered you the us of the LPH Guam, for example.

I doubt that the US would ever get directly involved in a war over the Falklands unless US interests were directly threatened, though Venezuela's involvement would probably tip the balance.

The Reagan administration provided very useful diplomatic, intelligence and logistical support in 1982, but I can't see the current administration doing even that. Clinton's actions thus far have bordered on tacit support for the Argentine claim.

If Britain asked for help? You're completely mad if you think we wouldn't. We pitched in with you and France in Libya, and that was an offensive operation that we wanted no part of…

I reiterate – if the UK had asked for help in '82, we;d have stepped up. We did absolutely everything that you did ask for.

I'd also cite the example of Belize in the 1970s – the country (which was still a British colony but was about to become an independent democracy) was directly threatened by US ally Guatemala. The Guats moved formations up to the border and Guatemalan P-51s intruded into Belizean airspace. The single company of British troops in the country couldn't hope to defend the place, so Ark Royal was ordered west to mount a show of strength. Far from supporting the UK in its defence of its territory, the USA refused permission for RN aircraft to pass through its airspace… There was no way to avoid US airspace, so the RN Buccaneers entered it anyway and the USAF attempted (unsuccessfully) to intercept them!

Never heard this story, and it appears to be false on the face of it.

Look at a map again, and then tell me how it's "impossible" for carrier based aircraft to fly to Belize or Guatemala w/o passing through US airspace. Then tell me where the USAF was trying to intercept the RN Buccaneers from, and why they thought it might be possible w/o major support.
-Kle.

Bulldog69.
Thanks for your kindly words.

About your question I had to be deeply sincere in my answer.

Nobody want a war. Argentina citizens didn't like war and of course another one as that we had lost on 1982 even less… BUT you had to take note that there are not in our country a most sensible theme for us that Malvinas (Falklands). It's difficult to find another one of that caliber. Even if any country critic/attack our President or some of our historical heroes, there would be people who accept or show indifference for that atack.
But "Malvinas" no.
There are not a single one here who didn't had emotional feelings for those Islands.
No matter the social class you belongs.
It's a truly undeniable feeling for us.
We know that our heroes are there, burried on that land which we considere as us.
Take note how we fight (those who did, not the criminals who ran) even without a chance. We KNOW that we had not a chance to win, but we also feel we were defending our soil, part of our home. It's difficult to explain and more in another idiom, but Malvinas (Falklands) are a sentiment for us.
We really consider and bellieve that those islands as part of our country and no matter what consideration give in favour or not one part or another.
So, Im pretty sure we continue working by diplomacy to arrived to an agreement with the British government, no matter which kind of government we have.
I pray that one day, both countries arrived to an agreement which leave happy both parts.
About a "real" war, (impossible to think to me)if it came and there are nothing to made to avoid it, I had to admit that I go there again as volunteer.
As all my friends, relatives, neighborhoods etc etc.
Of course not at the same lebel of the last time. We would be sure that this time we had a chance and that technnology and weapons would be more leveled.
Please, don't consider my words as a war sentiment, I'm very far for that, but I consider to be an honor to bleed again for my country and Malvinas (Falkland) are part of it.
That's the real feeling of Argentines and hope you understnad that my answer had been the most sincere I can.
Sorry for my english but I'm writting with my hart.

Amicalement
Armand

Tomahawk can be mounted in modular box launchers on deck. That's what we did on the Iowas.
-Kle

Yes, ABL – Armoured Box Launchers – as I said. Also used on several Spruances, Virginia class, and Long Beach

Kle, I'm not refuting the fact that Ronnie offered the use of an LPH (or at least that's the rumour – the rumour goes on to say that it was turned down as we had no way of crewing it – it absolutely was not going to come with US crew), but you were suggesting that the USA would automatically jump in on our side in a war where UK interests were threatened – I disagree. No, it wasn't asked, but I don't for one second believe that the USA would have sent combat troops in 1982 even if it were asked and I think it even less likely now, unless US interests were directly threatened. Suez anyone? I did say that the USA provided invaluable logistical support in 1982, which included allowing us to buy more AIM-9Ls from the USA's reserve stock.

You can believe what you want re Belize, but that was essentially down to the position of the Ark Royal relative to Belize. There was a major (private) diplomatic spat between the UK & USA over the issue, culminating in a refusal to allow the RN to pass through the USA's ADZ. It absolutely did happen, but remained an unknown incident for decades afterwards (it served neither US or UK interests to publicly reveal the spat). I brought it up as an example of where the USA's and UK's strategic objectives have occasionally conflicted since WW2 and where the USA has manifestly opposed British actions. I can highly recommend this book, which includes interviews with Air National Guard Delta Dart pilots involved in the attempted interception:

link

Armand,
I was always told as a Briton that your armed forces had better equipment than ours during the the war. Things like up to date night vision equipment. It's interesting that you feel that the British were better equiped.

I remember reading that British soldiers had to go to army surplus stores in the UK to top up their equipment with things like decent foot wear.

According to: link

…the US was caught between its commitments to a NATO member, and those of the Rio Pact, leading to a state of non-interference over "that little ice-cold bunch of land down there"

Armand

Your sentiments are appreciated – but the British hold similar views. We consider the people who live there have the right to decide – and they are quite clear in their views. As the Falklands were British before Argentina existed, and as there were never any permanent Spanish settlements there anyway, it is difficult for anyone in the UK to feel that the Argentine has a case. Further, the islands were supposed to have been first discovered (European – no idea about Native Americans) by the Dutch, the first attempt at a colony by the French, and they are 250 miles away from Argentina.

Please note this is not an attempt at justifying the British case, simply an explanation to help you understand it and how we feel.

Rob

Regarding income, the fisheries are very lucrative. Main types are krill, ice fish and tooth fish. I gather one of the krill boats has an annual catch of 40,000 tonnes of krill. These vessels have to be licenced by the Falklands Government, and in fact as part of the licence they all carry a Fisheries Observer. Which pays my son's wages.

I'm sure that rationally no-one wants a war and that some of the press and ex-military comments are part of a campaign against the cuts – of course I suspect most people here would actually be against them too as they are driven by bean counters and politicians with a pretty contemptible agenda – the one country we are deployed in seems, from recent press reports (based on leaked assessments by ISAF own intell/analysis people) to have a security/political structure that seems pretty sympathetic to an enemy who are being actively assisted by the intell service of another ally – and all the ISAF spokesman said (in another report on the story) is that the report was for internal use only and shouldn't have been disclosed to the public (whose sons and money are the sinews of said war) link – I don't take Pakistani denials of ISI involvement as worth anything at all.

My understanding and memory is that Ronnie offered, and Maggie declined.

Mine (dimmed by the years, to be sure) is that we (British) were jolly lucky that Weinberger was at Defense at the time, and that the Args annoyed the US diplomatically by rejecting their peace proposals. Argentina was (and is) an important regional ally for the US. It wasn't obvious or inevitable then that the US would back the UK over Argentina, any more than it is now.

Prince Rupert, it was funny to read on both countries the same article about the lack of night vision equipment at the same time.
As Great Britain was part of the OTAN I never suspect that they would said that we had better equipment of any kind.
Our cloth was nasty, except for our boots. In this case we had advantage. I take note of that when I became prisioner of war. Our FAL were not very good. If you shot more than 40 rounds, it became so hot that the barrel began to twist. The FAP were a little better.
We had not personal kits and the food… what food?.
Only those on Puerto Argentino (Port Stanley) eat well.
We had to hunt some sheeps if we want to eat and that was punishable with staked on the ground. Do you imagin how many time you can resist on your back in the ground of the Islands with your face on the sky?
My ammo had failed one of five, and I was fortunate because they were from 1976. Other had older ones.
I had seen two night vision equipment. One with the Rico Commandoes platoon and another one with the Marine Infantry.
My Regiment had not them and I know that others of regular infantry neither.
We cannot surplus our equipment (well, I had my personal 9mm)before the landing because, in any moment, nobody think that the war could be REAL.
All time, even the hight command, said and think that our occupation would be for a short time (that's why the veterans units left the Islands and we, conscripts replace them). When you sink the Salta submarine, this was the first moment we KNOW that war was not a newspaper one.
Well, I had to admit that in my case, I always think that the war would be real. I became from an English family (from my mother part) and as my favorite reading material was always history and as I remember the thales of my grand grandfather a ship Captain under the British Flag, I KNOW that you would come and fight.
So, my seccion was one of the few which was prepeared in the best possible way.

Garrison, many thanks for your understanding of our feelings. We respect the local population when we were there. I never hear about a complain of the civil population for the Argentine troops. But there were an Argentine civil population before their arrival in 1830. There were also a military fort and a military unit there.
And they were all Argentines with the Argentine flag in the fort.
Both had been atacked, destroyed and on January 3rd 1833 mostly of the survivals were put on board and send to Montevideo-Uruguay.
There were also a kind of guerrilla warfare from some "gauchos" at the command of one of them called Antonio Rivero nicknamed "Antook" by the british who succeded in the take of the gobernor house and the fort for five month waiting reinforcements from land that never arrived. When the British Navy return, those men were defeated but it tooks three month to made that.
I don't want to discuss about who had more rights to consider the Islands as their own, these is for the diplomats who had to search the documents, etc.
I consider that another war between our countries for the Islands is a very crazy thing.
We need an agreement interesting for both parts and it will take a long time yet.
The risk is in a future, the Islands became part of other countries.

Amicalement
Armand

Well, let's just pray both parties can avoid any more military unpleasantness: I want Armand/Raul posting more interesting hobby links, not worrying about his country being involved in another war.

Tango – as a matter of interest, where does the Argentinian obsession with the Falklands come from?

The earliest claim to the place is Anglo-French (one island each). The Spanish had them for a bit and then left.

There was a British colony on there decades before Argentina was independent, and when abandoned the claim was never relinquished.

So far as I can recall the only time the Argentinians had any control was about eighteen months and they were turned off in short order as soon as their presence was known.

The archipelago is hundreds of miles away from Argentina.

So, frankly, how did the Argentinians ever get the idea the Falklands are naturally part of Argentina?

Just curious…

Because we gave Luis Vernet permission to settle there?

Look, there are lots of things that can be said about the US, and I would not dispute. You can call on a big list of things and say, geeze, you Yanks are total bleeps, and I would say, yes, yes we are.

However, I find the contention that if the UK were attacked by a foreign nation, and asked the US for help, that we would refuse to be utterly preposterous in the post WW2 era.

US public opinion was vehemently pro-UK back in '82.
Yes, we tried to get a negotiated settlement out of the Argentines, but wouldn't it have been better to evict them from the islands w/o bloodshed? Go ahead and think what you want, but ponder how seriously you would take my opinion of how the UK would react in a crisis, from my seat here in the US.
-Kle.

I meant no offence, Kle. I apologise profusely. I didn't mean to imply that anyone was a bleep. Nor was I suggesting that the US would not help the UK if asked. And I remember the attitude of most US citizens at the time.

My point was that US leaders had to act in their own national self-interest, and that that wasn't an easy calculation to make – given that both sides in the conflict were friends of the US. The fact that the UK was utterly dependent on wholehearted US military support in Europe also meant that the US wouldn't necessarily have to take account of UK interests in the South Atlantic when those conflicted with those of another ally. Because, really, what could the UK do? As it was, the UK did benefit hugely from US assistance, and I am very glad of it. The impression that the Secretary of Defense played an important role in mobilising that support was reflected in his honorary knighthood later. The corollary was that the President was not necessarily quite so enthusiastically or automatically in support of the UK – on this specific issue, and only at the start. Let me be explicit: this would have been entirely proper on his part. This is not Reagan-bashing.

You are of course absolutely right that it would have been far better if an acceptable resolution had been reached with no further casualties. Again, I meant to imply nothing negative about the US's intentions here – just that the Argentine leadership didn't seem to do *themselves* any favours in the way they handled those diplomatic overtures. But obviously I wasn't on the inside, so that impression might be quite erroneous.

Given the relation that the US had with the UK at that time, as well as the relationship they US was trying to maintain with South America, I suspect that there were a lot of 'off the record' phone calls, a lot of "what would you do if we were to…" conversations and a quiet agreement and acceptence that the US would neither support nor condone any action.

As it was, I believe the US did offer some support – AIM-9s spring to mind (although as most engagements were rear quarter anyway, their presence was somewhat irrelevant). I seem to recall that France passively stayed out of it by positevly not supplying any more Exocets during the period of conflict.

Resolution without war is always the preferable option.

GeoffQRF – you'd have thought the fact that Vernet needed British permission might provide something by way of a clue?

It doesn't seem that Argentina has the ability to conquer the Falklands unless the UK runs downs the forces available on the Falkland Islands.

Am I missing something or have the Falkland Islands been British for longer than Argentina has existed as a country?

Tango01 wrote:

There are not a single one here who didn't had emotional feelings for those Islands.

Apparently there are plenty of Argentinians who respect the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination. Beatriz Sarlo (columnist for La Naciσn) describes herself as an 'anti-Malvinera'.

Jorge Lanata (Argentine journalist) says "Malvinas is not part of Argentina; it is part of our imagination."

link

He also sought the Argentines permission, so I'm not sure that gives any additional weight to either side. Funny thing is he was apparently born in Hamburg (but claimed French birth) so I suppose the Germans could go for it too. :-)

link confirms the French were there first. We haven't had a go at the French for a long time (probably because they now have more ships than us). It looks like the US were also there for a while, and on several occasions they were unowned (because who wants to own a cold, wet, boggy island full of penguins, sheep and no trees… well, except for the fish, and the minerals, and the oil)

Armand

Re settlement, appreciate some Spanish settlement, including, for example, a penal colony in the 1830s – hence use of term 'permanent'.

Re earliest 'settlement', going to wikipaedia – why not – I'm looking at this paragraph:

In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.[16] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[17] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767 and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[18

link

So French 1765, Britain 1766, Spain 1767, with Spain apparently accepting the British claim via a peace treaty in 1770.

My dear friends, discuss the real claims from both countries here is not a good path.
Leave that to the diplomats. That's their job.
Both countries believed that the Islands are part of their soil.
Let's tried to leave this possible conflict as a "what if" wargame.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand

Agreed. Though in my case, 'what if' doesn't really apply unless you involve time travel back to the Greeks and Persians!

Rob