From the LRC blog:
The UK proabably would have lost its war against Argentina in the 80s without US support,
I'm not really a Falkland War expert, but I have trouble believing this. Does anyone have a link as to what this is refering to?
I too find that hard to believe. The US did what in that mess?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War#Public_opinion
The wikipedia article doesn't list anything too impressive on the US part, though it did clearly favor the UK
Britain won the Falklands war by 'going it alone', though. Nobody, including the American government, (according to Margaret Thatcher's own memoirs) wanted the UK to honestly succeed; everyone wanted the UK to get a suitably bloody nose and have a laugh at its expense… ironically the only staunch ally we had was President Mitterand of France.
From a military standpoint the campaign was a miraculous success that not even Whitehall were confident about. From a libertarian standpoint as well, the war was also perfectly legitimate as the islanders freely considered themselves British citizens and thus demanded that the British army protect their property rights from absolutely unreasonable Argentinian seizure. Britain didn't want war as its military was in a relatively decrepit state, but it wasn't about to permit an 'aggressive property rights transfer' by General Galtieri either.
Ludwig von Mises: "We must see conditions as they really are, not as we want them to be."
Indeed. If it hadn’t been financed through taxation it would have been the prime example of a just war, besides the coolest military victory since, hell since some time.
AndrewR,
You are so right. It was probably the most just war fought by any of the Western powers in the 20th century.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Well, even Argentina benefited from losing the war (getting rid of a nasty military ditactorship).
Considering that, almost no one ever benefited form winning any wars
I doubt that the US really played that large of a role. The military of Argentina was designed to terrorize their populace and the dictatorship there was on its last legs so it hoped the British would just ignore the invasion. Argentina was complely bankrupt and printing money like crazy. Mothers had tanken to the streets in protest of children who had just dissapeared. The military dictatorship failed to understand that Britan was also looking to divert attention from the failing social systems: Health Service, Education, pensions, etc (Funny how these issues never seem to get any better despite the giant increases in technology) and found itself with the perfect PR event: A mini war on turf you own with an enemy with inferior weaponry.
Of course the aftermath was only good for British PR. More people died in the slaughter than actually inhabit the island. The military dictator continue and eventually fell due to that process that kills all governments: Inflation. The British government could then continue for a short time on their inflation as well.
Anyone have the link to the blog posted here before about the anarchy in Argentina?
edit: I found it and this is the only post of his mentioning Falkland, doesn't really say much.
Since 1976, Argentine economic policies have lurched from catastrophe to catastrophe. The military junta borrowed enormously with no serious thought about consequences, and the structures of Argentine society made it impossible to tell how funds were being invested. Foreign debt exploded, the deficit boomed, and inflation approached 100 percent a year. Economic meltdown had disastrous political consequences. By 1982, like many other dictatorships through history, the Argentine junta tried to solve its domestic problems by turning to foreign military adventures. And like other regimes, they found that their control over military affairs was about as weak as their command of the economy. Military defeat in the Falkland Islands destroyed the junta. By 1983, a civilian president was in power once more. But nothing could stop the nosedive. Inflation reached 672 percent by 1985 and 3,080 percent by 1989. The disaster provoked capital flight and the collapse of investor confidence, not to mention the annihilation of middle-class savings. In the words on one observer, José Ignacio García Hamilton, the nation became “an international beggar with the highest per capita debt in the world.”
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
The Americans did aid Britain they provided the logisitcal support for Britain to fight a war 11,000 miles from it home base in the form of leasing the Ascenicion Island American airport and helping in hauling in supplies to the island. Perhaps just as crucial they provided the new sidewinder missile, which allowed the Harrier to simply outclass the Argentinian Airforce in Air combat.
I think we should be thankfull for American support as without it the Falkland Islanders would still be suffering under the unimaginable oppression of being forced to drive on the right side of the road.
I would say at the very least, it is the least objectional war fought in quite some time by the West. I don't understand why that LRC poster found it so offensive, or even something to warrent a comment about the US/UK special relationship (as I still don't think anything the US did was that important or novel)
Perhaps just as crucial they provided the new sidewinder missile, which allowed the Harrier to simply outclass the Argentinian Airforce in Air combat. I think we should be thankfull for American support as without it the Falkland Islanders would still be suffering under the unimaginable oppression of being forced to drive on the right side of the road.
Uh, what?
Argentina's air force was built towards possible conflict with Chile, and lacked long-range support for much of its aircraft; the RAF blew up the airfield in Stanley which meant all Argentine excusions into the Falklands (the 25 De Mayo had been relegated to port over fear of possibly being lost after the General Belgrano was sunk by the RN) had to be launched from the mainland; Argentina's A4's were attack aircraft more than fighter aircraft, and it's myriad of Mirage variants lacked fuel capacity to do anything meaningful (and the British caught on to this, painting the corridor which was used to vector argentine aircraft to the islands and shooting fish in a barrel), and was sufferng from major mechanical setbacks owing to the military embargo imposed by the US during the Dirty War. Nevermind of course that the Argneitnes wre using Sidewinders as well, and that the British had been using previous models of it since the 1960's.
Argentina's air force was built towards possible conflict with Chile
And yet the argentinians expected Chile to help them in their war with England.....
Dondoolee: From the LRC blog: The UK proabably would have lost its war against Argentina in the 80s without US support, I'm not really a Falkland War expert, but I have trouble believing this. Does anyone have a link as to what this is refering to?
Dondoolee
I think this comment refers to the fact that the US allowed the UK to have the latest Sidewinder air to air missiles. These latest Sidewinders had the significant advantage in that they could be fired at an on-coming aircraft, whereas the previous Sidewinders, the ones the Argentinians were using, could only be fired once you were behind the aircraft you were aiming at. This gave the British pilots a huge advantage in being able to shoot at the Argentinian planes when they could not shoot back! It would have been a much bloodier war for the British without them.
In all modern conventional wars, air superiority is the key. The US allowed the UK to achieve this.
With kind regards
The Remnant.