شَادِنُ;1571552 said:
As I stated it is a stop over for their fleets.
What century are you living in? And when will you start making even basic research before you post?
The Falklands have no significant role for the British fleet and lacks the facilities to do so. By the time of the Falklands war there was just one Royal Navy supply vessel stationed there, the Endurance, which was a supply boat with no significant weaponry that couldn't have held off a Hawaiin war canoe, let alone a battleship.
Inadvertently it did play a part in the start of the war. Like so many wars this one began with a failure of diplomacy. Galtieri (an appalling military dictator who was busily killing many of his own people at the time) was becoming unpopular at home, just like the current Argentine president, and looking for a nice patriotic distraction. At that moment for budgetary reasons the British Government announced that the Endurance was to be decommissioned, leaving no naval ships at all stationed in the south Atlantic. (None at all - so much for your imperial fleet fantasy).
Galtieri misinterpreted this as a 'green light' that the Brits didn't really care about the islands and wouldn't bother to try and repossess them if he attacked. He was wrong, and the rest is history.
شَادِنُ;1571552 said:
What is a '1912' mentality? Are you getting confused again?
Why wouldn't Britain nuke Buenos Aires when it's people are under attack in the Falklands? The British are ruthless warriors, conquest is their sport. If you don't have the power to destroy them the next best thing is passive resistance like what Gandhi did and what other oppressed natives in the Anglosphere do.
It would be interesting to see Argentina trying 'passive resistance' in the Falklands, seeing as they have zero supporters on the island.
It wasn't an all-out war and both sides made no attempt to hit each others' mainlands. Britain declared a 200 mile 'exclusion zone' around the islands. Any Argentine ship that came within that zone wold be at risk of attack. If you looked at the amount of controversy caused by the sinking of the Belgrano (an Argentine battleship) because it was in the zone but steering a course outside, then you wouldn't be asking such questions about nuclear weapons.
The nuclear option was never an option, was never discussed, was never called for even by the most right wing press. Never mind international opinion, it would have led to the immediate fall of the UK government because the people were in no way prepared or ready to accept such a drastic escalation of the war. This is an entirely unreal speculation and even the Argentines have never claimed they were threatened - which they most certainly would be eager to do.
Even Argentinians welcome the fact that the defeat brought about the collapse of the Galtieri dictatorship, although of course defeat is hard to accept under any circumstances.
The British are ruthless warriors, conquest is their sport
In fact there is every chance that the UK will be the first country in the world to give up nuclear weapons, probably unilaterally because no one else will agree.
شَادِنُ;1571552 said:
This however, simply mirrors what happened in Singapore and I'd urge you to read about that with the placement of the chinese to change the Muslim demographics
The origins of the Falkland settlement are not historically clear and there are many versions. The islands were claimed successively by France, Spain, Britain and the nascent Argentinian state. Various settlements came and went, mainly concerned with whaling and sealing. At one point Argentina tried to establish a penal colony but it failed. It is not possible to be certain about this phase of history - however, when the British did take over, they did so without firing a shot and did not expel the citizens of any other country, who in any case were not born on the island.