falklands Trouble at mill: las Malvinas

[LuisDantas]

It's less a matter of nuclear weapons "doing good" (an inherent impossibility if you ask me) than one of public opinion and political rulers failing to develop better ways of avoiding conventional conflicts on the scale of the 20th century wars.

I guess it is better than the current alternative. Nevertheless, we must strive for better, more reliable, less expensive and less destructive ways.

[Horza]

Also, ask these guys how safe MAD was.

[dog-days]

To be more precise, they limit the kind of massive, multi-nation "Great Power" conflicts that you would get in the pre-Nuclear Era, such as World Wars I and II. Nuclear weapons are a country's tripwire, which they can use as a weapon of last resort to stop an invading force.

I think they've done a whole world of good in spite of their inherent risk. Just look at the twentieth century, where you had ~70 million people die in World Wars I and II alone. We haven't had a conflict truly like that since they became widespread, although there have still been some nasty regional wars . . . between nuclear and non-nuclear nations.

OTOH, wars on the scale of WW1 and 2 are pretty atypical. Before 1914, the last really huge conflict would probably be the Napoleonic wars. And even set against them, I think that the world wars are pretty remarkable in terms of the numbers of the population mobilized and the effect on civilian life in countries outside of the immediate conflict zone. You could see the series of horrible but limited wars in the wake of WW2 as a return to historical patterns - of the Top Nations (^TM Sellar and Yeatman) invading smaller ones with professional armies and of horribly destructive but localized civil wars. Without MAD, it is of course possible that we would now be in the midst of WW3 or 4 or 5 - or it could just be that after most periods of major conflagration, there is a gap of fifty to a hundred years before the next one, as new powers arise and successive generations forget what war is like.

[LuisDantas]

WW I and II were atypical, sure. But how much of the factors that made them atypical has been reversed? Not much IMO. If anything, they have gotten a lot worse.

Weapons have become quite impressively more destructive, more widespread and less personal since, which makes such destructive conflicts way more likely and wider.

And nationalist thought, somewhat overcome due to WW II, has been steadily rising in the last 30 years or so. See how powerless the UNO became.

[Crackclaw]

Honestly both the US and British flag are on fire so often, it sort of loses all it's effect. Frankly we should just start selling pre-burnt flags, at least that way no one can have a horrid accident with lighter fluid and matches.

I thought sometimes that a way to riches would be to open a flag shop in places like gaza and Tehran. You could sell kits of 1 USA flag, 1 Israeli and a can of Zippo fluid. Plus keep a few Brit flags and the like around for good measure. Only problem would be when some weird Euro nation published a slightly offensive cartoon and then suddenly everyone wants a Sloveian flag or something.

[paddington]

OTOH, wars on the scale of WW1 and 2 are pretty atypical. Before 1914, the last really huge conflict would probably be the Napoleonic wars. And even set against them, I think that the world wars are pretty remarkable in terms of the numbers of the population mobilized and the effect on civilian life in countries outside of the immediate conflict zone. You could see the series of horrible but limited wars in the wake of WW2 as a return to historical patterns - of the Top Nations (^TM Sellar and Yeatman) invading smaller ones with professional armies and of horribly destructive but localized civil wars. Without MAD, it is of course possible that we would now be in the midst of WW3 or 4 or 5 - or it could just be that after most periods of major conflagration, there is a gap of fifty to a hundred years before the next one, as new powers arise and successive generations forget what war is like.

I don't know if they are that atypical, rare maybe, but theres been quite a few wars/conquest that have been incredibly bloody. If taken in proportian then some of the past wars are horrendous, Julies Caeser is belived to have killed a million Gauls during the conquest of France.

[Meshakhad]

The Malvinas will be our Dragonstone. Beware, Westereos - South America.

Hmm. So, at some point, a mysterious disaster will befall Britain. A century later, the Falklands will invade and conquer South America.

[The GRRumbler]

Hmm. So, at some point, a mysterious disaster will befall Britain. A century later, the Falklands will invade and conquer South America.

If that means Britain disappearing in a sea of smoke and lava im all for it :D

Since the Northeastern region of Brazil (where i live) looks a lot like Dorne in both weather, food, culture, that means we'll be defiant for at least a century :fencing:

[Hereward]

If that means Britain disappearing in a sea of smoke and lava im all for it :D

This is what happens when you decide not to take on the burden of instructing a country in the ways of civilisation in our traditionally cruel but fair fashion. They feel snubbed. *firm nod*

[MinDonner]

It's never too late to start. :devil:

...now, where did we put those aircraft carriers?

damnit

[Spring Bass]

Also, ask these guys how safe MAD was.

That's because we switched over to ICBMs in the 1960s as the main way for nuclear warheads to be delivered, and we kicked the ABM efforts of the 1950s (Nike-Zeus) into dormancy until Reagan revived them in the 1980s. That's an inherently unstable situation, since ICBMs can't be stopped in flight (meaning that once you launch them, it's best to launch all of them or risk getting part of your arsenal destroyed by the Russian attack/counter-attack). Bombers are much safer, and much more reliable.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Bass,

Ever see the movie "Failsafe"?

[RWHamel]

It's never too late to start. :devil:

...now, where did we put those aircraft carriers?

damnit

You don't have any planes to fly off them anyway. :laugh:

[Horza]

That's because we switched over to ICBMs in the 1960s as the main way for nuclear warheads to be delivered, and we kicked the ABM efforts of the 1950s (Nike-Zeus) into dormancy until Reagan revived them in the 1980s. That's an inherently unstable situation, since ICBMs can't be stopped in flight (meaning that once you launch them, it's best to launch all of them or risk getting part of your arsenal destroyed by the Russian attack/counter-attack). Bombers are much safer, and much more reliable.

Except that doesn't cover Arkhipov, and pre CMC there were a lot more nukes in the hands of lower-level commanders and the protocols for their use were much less defined.

We got lucky.

[dog-days]

My solution to the Falklands problem? Sell them.

[Lummel]

selling them would be a great idea from a rational perspective. Had the only prospective buyer not made it an issue of international face and reputation by invading they could have had them years ago at a bargain price.

[Xanrn]

Pointless discussion Argetina ain't exactly rolling in money.

The British Government doesn't own the Falklands, the Islanders do they bought the title off the Falkland Island Company.

Don't need Carriers.

4 Typhoons could eat the entire Argie air force without much effort.

Only credible threat is the Brazillians.

We couldn't even sell The Rock at the moment, because the Spainards are broke aswell.

LoL at everybody offering to buy Islands off the Greeks though, haha.

[dog-days]

selling them would be a great idea from a rational perspective. Had the only prospective buyer not made it an issue of international face and reputation by invading they could have had them years ago at a bargain price.

I'd feel rather sorry for the islanders, who would be have been bought and sold for English Argentine gold, indeed, were the UK to do the unlikely thing and sell-up; however, Hensher makes a good case. I'm mostly imagining what half a billion could do if invested in inner city comps. It wouldn't be, of course. We'd probably end up spending it on Trident.

The British Government doesn't own the Falklands, the Islanders do they bought the title off the Falkland Island Company.

News to me. Out of interest, how valid is the title? It's presumably recognized by the UK but not by Argentina?

[Lummel]

Don't think we'd get much for them even if there were buyers around. The value would be in getting shot of the liability.

Dog-Days - did you feel sorry for the Hong-Kongers when they were given to China?

[dog-days]

Don't think we'd get much for them even if there were buyers around. The value would be in getting shot of the liability.

Dog-Days - did you feel sorry for the Hong-Kongers when they were given to China?

I was ten years old when Hong Kong was returned to China, and I can't recall what I felt. I doubt I even knew what Hong Kong was. Looked at in retrospect, after a year spent living in China, I've still little idea what to make of the handover.