Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Ebar, Dec 14, 2005.
With friends like these... :-?
in plain english it means
..You buy our plane ... you can only buy our missiles at our price ,
Yeah, it makes a lot more sense teaming with the French on the Rafale and a carrier, look at the help they provided the Brits during the Falklands war. What would you consider whole hearted, declaring war on Argentina?
AFAIK we got a fair bit of timely intel from the US during the Falklands do. And knowing Maggie she'd have probably told Ronnie to "bugger off and leave us to sort it out", if he'd offered more help than she wanted.
There was never any real doubt about the outcome in my mind. Though if Argentina had kept up with the nuclear programme it started in the fifties that would have been a different story...
There was this article about France, Britain and the Falkland war:
In spirit of honesty it has to be admitted that the Americans were in a difficult position with the Falklands given that they were allied to both sides. Also a succession of British governments had made clear they didn't give a monkeys about the Falklands. Finally it has to be pointed out they did give a fair bit of indirect assistance to Britain*.
The main problem is that when it came down to a moral choice between an aggressive military Junta and a democratically elected government America chose not to make a decision.
Why should American have taken a stand? The Falklands were not the USA's problem. In short what was in it for them?
Perhaps the heart of the matter is that Britain and the US seem to have very different perceptions of what the alliance between them is. While Britain has shown an all-most dog like devotion** the US has taken a far more pragmatic line involving itself only when it suits American interests.
It's an approach we would do well to copy.
* Those Argentine freefall bombs that showed great reluctance to go off could have been adjusted to fuse more quickly but the Americans held back the manuals. Apparently the Argentines were a bit upset about that.
** With the exception of the Vietnam War. Mercifully on that occasion we had a PM will to tell the US 'sorry lads but it isn't our war'
on the general issue of friends , allied and local war , the size and
motive to go in must be weighed in .
for the falklands- malvina the U.S. were between a rock and a hard place
britain was hardly in danger of extinction
and if the aeronavale armorers did not adjust the timing of the fuses ,
-----as was their job----
don't blame the "yankis" but rather the change in tactics of the argies pilots
who came in increasingly low, hard and fast to penetrate the missile shield
And there is also this bit (not exactly reliable, but ...)
In 2005, a book written by President Mitterand's psychoanalyst, Ali Magoudi, gave a different account of French cooperation, quoting him as saying: "I had a difference to settle with the Iron Lady. That Thatcher, what an impossible woman! With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind."
I'm not sure that telling the Brits where to buy Exocets on the black market won the Falklands war for them either. But the Exocet intel and aircraft for training against were of definite help.
The US was in a tough position, linked to both sides by treaty, neither of which required the US support in this conflict (NATO didn't apply to the South Atlantic and the treaty with Argentina only applied to defense). After trying desperately to find a way that give the Argentines an "honorable" out, which would have helped the US in Latin America, the US sided fully with Britain. A supply of AIM-9L Sidewinders, intel, the use of the US base at Ascension and economic sanctions against Argentina were all provided. There were rumours that if the Brits had run into real trouble a US carrier task force might be available to help them. And don't forget that real US support for Argentina would have made the voyage of the task force impossible. As things turned out the Brits didn't need any help, probably to the great relief of Washington. Even so the latins still view this as a sellout of Argentina by the Americans and proof that the Americans can't be trusted to stick by their treaty obligations.
I doubt the US has regretted finally backing the Brits.
Actually this is a good point that I never really thought of.
Technically, the attack on the Falklands was an attack on British territory, and so surely NATO should have declared war on Argentina...
Why didn't the NATO treaty apply to South America?
NATO only applies to Europe and North America(+Asia in the case of Turkey), so NATO partners did not have to intervene in the Falkland war.
On the same basis for example NATO did not have to intervene during France's war in Algeria.
That is interesting, as I thought that it was simply a mutual defensive pact regardless of where the country (or its territories) were attacked.
Articles 5 and 6 state that it applies to attacks in Europe, North America, some parts of Asia (for Turkey) and Algeria for France. But an amendment was made on Algeria in 1961 or 1962 IIRC, deleting that country...
There's an official NATO site that has the treaty wording on it starting with the very first agreement, with various updates added over the years.
Ok, given the current climate of less funding for the military here in the UK, I give you our newest MBT, the "Cuts"
It is constructed with a unique modular structure that allows you to rebuild it as a more basic vehicle when funding is withdrawn.
Top of the range model:
wow, that stage 5 tank looks deadly! I wouldn't like to be sitting in my T-55 and see that coming my way!