August 7

What makes the Falkland Islands so appealing for the United Kingdom and Argentina that they were willing to fight a war over the territory? 147.41.128.38 (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For both, the use of the islands as a cargo terminal and anchorage for warships in that part of the southern hemisphere were surely part of it, as would be the fisheries and other resources within the exclusive economic zone. For Argentina, the proximity to it would also have strategic importance, as well as raise issues related to competing claims over things like fisheries. The UK's additional interests would probably mostly stem from protection over overseas subjects, which is a matter of great importance to most developed nations with overseas dependencies. Most people living in the Falkland Islands are of Scottish and Welsh descent, and don't see themselves as Argentinians, thus the question of self-determination enters into it. But looking at it from a highly cynical view, you could definitely explain it in terms of economics and importance for naval force projection in the region (particularly for the UK). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Argentina's part, some combination of pride (unwilling to let go of an old claim) and diversionary foreign policy. Wars are sometimes deliberately started or at least threatened just to drum up support for a flagging regime. On the UK's part, it's a necessary show of force. That is, if the one-time largest empire on Earth can't defend a little island from some upstart military junta in South America, what other countries might start considering invading the UK's overseas territory? Economically the Falklands makes a considerable profit from the fishing trade, although this was after the invasion, as prior the local fish had been exploited to near-extinction. It was also determined more recently that the area around the islands may have oil reserves of 60 billion barrels, which at today's price would be worth around $3 trillion. It's not easy to access, though - deepwater oil costs ballpark $30 a barrel to extract, but that's still a load of money, especially as easier reserves deplete. But again, at the time of the fighting? Not a major factor. I suspect if the island's economy had never materialized, it might not be any different. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a further as-yet undiscussed factor. The Falklands were the headline issue for both sides, being de facto long-populated by ethnically British inhabitants but with a shaky de jure case, popular in Argentina, for a Spanish and by inheritance Argentinian territorial claim. However, Argentinia also attempted to seize South Georgia Island, part of the British Overseas Territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands on which Argintina also has claims. This territory overall has considerable strategic importance (because of nuclear submarine routes) and potentially large economic value from its fishing and (sea floor) mineral resources. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.24.56 (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia has an article titled Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute which has a LOT of information on the historical background behind the various claims over the islands. It would be a useful starting point for the OP to research the answers to their question. If that one article doesn't contain enough information, there are several links to related articles, to external sources, and to references that may help. On the general question, Britain wants to maintain the Falklands for many of the same reason other European and Western colonial powers have retained territories in far-flung places, like the U.S. in places like Guam and Midway Island, or France with its various outre-mer territories. To maintain economic control over a local resource (oil, fish, etc.). To maintain a place for commercial or military vessels to base themselves if needed. To project power to remote locations around the world. Many of these are "just-in-case" reasons; i.e. there may not currently be any war going on, but you better believe that Guam would become very useful to the U.S. in case one were to break out in Asia, for example. Or there may not currently be oil reserves nearby to one of these remote islands, but if any were found... After all, control of the Spratly Islands probably wasn't all that big of a deal, until it was... --Jayron32 12:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has yet linked to it, so here it is: Exclusive economic zone. For that reason, any island has some value. (and I am not saying that is the only value it would have) --Lgriot (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also back in the 80s people were still seriously talking about other seabed/continental shelf resources like manganese nodules. So having lots of wide EEZ claims around the world were seen as having long-term value... just as soon as the science caught up with it! (nearly 40 years later we're still waiting) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When people don't bitch about short-termism (red link? seriously?), they must mock long term thinking, I guess... Gem fr (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This could be huge in this century and the next, and France must know it. The EEZ for Clipperton Island, an atoll so small that it would extremely hard to survive on it without supplies being delivered regularly, is 431,273 sq km, much larger than the entire EEZ of Metropolitan France (only 333,691 sq km). --Lgriot (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested to watch this 60 minute YouTube video by the rather excellent Lindy Beige. --bodnotbod (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting indeed. I wondered why NATO didn't kick in, and answer lies in North_Atlantic_Treaty#Article_6: the treaty covers only member states' territories in Europe and North America, and islands in the North Atlantic north of the Tropic of Cancer, plus French Algeria. Gem fr (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source but my impression is that it was not the actual loss of the Falklands which was the spur for the British military action in 1982, but rather the manner of their loss. Allowing an armed invasion of British territory to succeed would have set a dangerous precedent for others with designs on British territories, the Belizean–Guatemalan territorial dispute being the obvious example, but abandoning the Falklands might have had implications for Gibraltar and Homg Kong as well. Our Events leading to the Falklands War article barely mentions the talks in New York in January 1982 in which the British were offering a joint sovereignty deal, but was rejected by the Argentinians who wanted a more immediate solution. A similar deal had been offered in the 1970s. [1] Archived papers reveal that Mrs Thatcher was willing to cut a sovereignty deal right up to the start of military action, but the Argentinians wouldn't accept military withdrawal. [2] The Falklands has been a drain on the British treasury for many decades and I suspect that the Whitehall mandarins would love to find an honourable way of quietly getting rid of them. Of course, having gone to war on the issue of the self-determination of the Islanders, we can't now overrule their wishes; in the 2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 99.8% of Falklands voters voted to remain a British Overseas Territory on a 92% turnout. Only three people out of 1,518 votes were against, but they may have wanted full independence rather than Argentinian sovereignty. The Argentinians didn't treat their prospective citizens terribly well during their stay; some Islanders were deported as "troublemakers", one whole community was imprisoned in the village hall for the duration, while others had their houses used as toilets by the occupiers. Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]