Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

"We are going to get the Falklands back"


Socio

Recommended Posts

If Argentina gained control or the Falklands I have no doubt in my mind that they would be nuked, but only if the islands could not be won back through conventional war. Tony Blair stated over a decade ago that Britain would nuke non nuclear countries that used conventional weapons against us and I doubt the Tories feel any differently. They would never win a one on one war with us anyway. Even though it's possible they could give us a hard time.

I think the Falklands are the only aspect of British foreign policy I could ever agree with, even though the government has completely different motives behind defending them than they claim to, or that I do.

Also, even if a large deposit of oil was found there, the islanders would never turn their backs on Britain as someone earlier suggested. Even if they wanted to, they could not afford to, as it would mean losing British military and political support, paving the way for Argentina (if Britain even allowed the islanders independence, which I severely doubt they would, at least not straight away) to claim the islands and their riches.

Either way, the islanders had better realise soon that any oil found there will not be their own. That's one fantasy best let go of as soon as possible, to save disappointment in the future. The islands would simply just be another old style colony, ripe for elites to plunder the resources.

We should nuke if it happens again even if their forces can easily be beaten.

The reason is to deliver a 'shock' so they dont come back a third time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 360
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mr Right Wing

    38

  • Space Commander Travis

    30

  • Mekorig

    26

  • keithisco

    26

We should nuke if it happens again even if their forces can easily be beaten.

The reason is to deliver a 'shock' so they dont come back a third time.

You are seriously advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? If it happens again we should destroy completely their military and make sure it never recovers, not kill a massive amount of civilians. Jesus Christ man that' some Hitler **** right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are seriously advocating killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians? If it happens again we should destroy completely their military and make sure it never recovers, not kill a massive amount of civilians. Jesus Christ man that' some Hitler **** right there.

Typical internet tough guy. Best to just roll your eyes and ignore the foolishness.

Edited by Corp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, Corp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot see the Falkland Islanders voting for independence. Every referendum so far they have voted absolutely overwhelmingly to remain British and I can't see that changing any time soon.

But, if the Falkland Islanders do vote for independence then I'll accept that, and so will Britain. Unlike Argentina, which wants the islands no matter what the islanders think, Britain respects the democratic will of the Falkland Islanders.

Lets be Honest , Britain has a history of taking what isn't theirs and no giving it back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be Honest , Britain has a history of taking what isn't theirs and no giving it back

I think the issue at hand is whether Britain would NUKE someone over the Falklands. I don't think any rational country would ever again try to use a nuke for less than an existential threat. That country could never again be an accepted member of the community of nations. Truman used one ostensibly to save over a million US lives but that was not the only reason for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs were for political impact as well. And they basically failed in that regard. The firebombing of Japanese cities did far more damage than those two bombs and it also desensitized the military to the scale of death they were causing. At that point in '45 any loss of life could be justified in their minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of Tony Blair's government, including the man himself, stated that Britain would nuke a non-nuclear country if attacked with conventional weapons. And governments may change, but foreign policy rarely does (and even more rare is for it to change for the better).

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of Tony Blair's government, including the man himself, stated that Britain would nuke a non-nuclear country if attacked with conventional weapons. And governments may change, but foreign policy rarely does (and even more rare is for it to change for the better).

I'll take your word for it but I just can't believe that a modern State would commit such a horror without it's back against a wall and a gun to it's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Both of our countries have supplied weapons and diplomatic support for countries carrying out worse (or equally horrid) Crimes against humanity, which is in essence, just as bad doing it themselves. Not to mention they literally done as bad themselves. It really isn't much of a stretch to imagine that they would use a nuke. It certainly is not a moral worry they would have. The only problem would be their constituents, and we have shown them over the decades that we, collectively, are rather thick as the earth's crust when it comes to our countrys' foreign policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of Tony Blair's government, including the man himself, stated that Britain would nuke a non-nuclear country if attacked with conventional weapons. And governments may change, but foreign policy rarely does (and even more rare is for it to change for the better).

We should

Just like in prison no one messes with the crazy dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? Both of our countries have supplied weapons and diplomatic support for countries carrying out worse (or equally horrid) Crimes against humanity, which is in essence, just as bad doing it themselves. Not to mention they literally done as bad themselves. It really isn't much of a stretch to imagine that they would use a nuke. It certainly is not a moral worry they would have. The only problem would be their constituents, and we have shown them over the decades that we, collectively, are rather thick as the earth's crust when it comes to our countrys' foreign policies.

I think that the difference lies in the emotional impact of the weapon. They've become a symbol of utter and complete destruction and scare the hell out of everyone - with good reason. I think their use will be like crossing a modern Rubicon. No turning back and bad things lay ahead for everyone. Due to my religious belief in prophecy I think that Israel will be the next country to use them. I believe they will destroy the city of Damascus, Syria. It will be in response to an attack by Syria with some sort of WMD. Regardless who uses them next, though, the world changes dramatically that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any rational country would ever again try to use a nuke for less than an existential threat. That country could never again be an accepted member of the community of nations.

including your favorite target - Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

including your favorite target - Iran.

I specified that the country must be RATIONAL...nice try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should

Just like in prison no one messes with the crazy dude.

I'm guessing that you're being tongue in cheek.

Let's hope so,anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Old Testament

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that you're being tongue in cheek.

Let's hope so,anyway.

No I'm not

I realise you're more of a pacifist type that would require a threat to our very existance before we nuked. The problem with that is other nations will take advantage knowing the response will be weak. The result is a Korean war, Falklands, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, 9/11, Iraq, Afganistan and soon maybe Iran or the Falklands again. Let me ask you is a war every 10 years worth it?

If we were to absolutely crush the next one with nuclear weapons it will be a war every 500 years. Other peoples would hate us for it but I promise you no one would mess with us again.

We should wipe Argentina off the face of the Earth if they invade the Falklands for a 2nd time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not

I realise you're more of a pacifist type that would require a threat to our very existance before we nuked. The problem with that is other nations will take advantage knowing the response will be weak. The result is a Korean war, Falklands, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, 9/11, Iraq, Afganistan and soon maybe Iran or the Falklands again. Let me ask you is a war every 10 years worth it?

If we were to absolutely crush the next one with nuclear weapons it will be a war every 500 years. Other peoples would hate us for it but I promise you no one would mess with us again.

We should wipe Argentina off the face of the Earth if they invade the Falklands for a 2nd time.

Nobody would mess with us...but also nobody would trade with us, and within a decade we'd be a third world country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, your logic is completely flawed to suggest that usage of nukes would stave off wars for '500' years. The U.S. Already did and one of the countries you mention was at war with them in a decade. Though I do see I was correct in my 'Hitler' comment.

Not condoning usage of nukes does not, by the way, equate to a 'pacifist' approach. You may want to look up the definition of that word. Also, a strong response does not equate to using nukes. There are plenty of conventional means at our disposal that would be viewed as a strong response.

And just for the record, most countries are already scared of us (to an extent) as we have been bullying the world's weakest nations since WW2 (actually a lot longer). We **** with them, nor the other way about, with the one exception of the Falklands. Pick up a history book please, instead of developing a world view based on your experiences in Call of Duty, Battlefield or James Bond.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I'm not

I realise you're more of a pacifist type that would require a threat to our very existance before we nuked. The problem with that is other nations will take advantage knowing the response will be weak. The result is a Korean war, Falklands, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, 9/11, Iraq, Afganistan and soon maybe Iran or the Falklands again. Let me ask you is a war every 10 years worth it?

If we were to absolutely crush the next one with nuclear weapons it will be a war every 500 years. Other peoples would hate us for it but I promise you no one would mess with us again.

We should wipe Argentina off the face of the Earth if they invade the Falklands for a 2nd time.

hmmm. But within 5 years of the U.S. using the Bomb, twice, it was at war again, in Korea. So would you have recommended that the Bomb was used against Pyongyang, and/or Peking? (Not Beijing then.) And would that then have put off north Vietnam (which I notice wasn't in your list) from putting pressure on South Vietnam? And if it hadn't, should the U.S. then have used the Bomb against Hanoi? Don't you think that by that time, all the rest of the World might have put their differences aside and sided with the USSR in a war against the U.S., which would not only have been the Global Bully by then but would have been seen by all the rest of the world as completely insane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insanity is where this thread headed as soon as someone suggested nuking the civilian population of Argentina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm. But within 5 years of the U.S. using the Bomb, twice, it was at war again, in Korea. So would you have recommended that the Bomb was used against Pyongyang, and/or Peking? (Not Beijing then.) And would that then have put off north Vietnam (which I notice wasn't in your list) from putting pressure on South Vietnam? And if it hadn't, should the U.S. then have used the Bomb against Hanoi? Don't you think that by that time, all the rest of the World might have put their differences aside and sided with the USSR in a war against the U.S., which would not only have been the Global Bully by then but would have been seen by all the rest of the world as completely insane?

If Iran attacked the US tomorrow and Obama nuked them to kingdom come I dont think public opinion in the West would turn on America. The Arabs wouldnt like it but I think many Westerners would have a well done attitude. I know I would regardless of how many Persian civilians died under the mushroom clouds.

Anyway this is getting off course its supposed to be about them Argies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets be Honest , Britain has a history of taking what isn't theirs and no giving it back

like what for instance......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not negotiate with Argentina? See what they put on the table? It could be beneficial to the Islanders (they used to send heir kids to Argentine Universities in the past). Nobody is saying that the Falklanders have to accept their proposals, but it is plain childish NOT to hear them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.