why didnt the UK invoke NATO article 5 during the falklands war?

>>32139309
because all of NATO roflestomping those Argie niggers wouldn't have been very sporting. besides, they got aid from us, just behind closed doors.

>>32139309
It already was pretty silly.

>>32139309
Last time we got help from you fucking yanks you never let us forget it.

>>32139309
It was a pride thing, but that isn't to say they didn't have help, they did. Specifically US tanker aircraft and fleet replenishment ships on the voyage down to the South Atlantic.

Also, there's a clause in Article 5:
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 6 further specifies that Article 5 is limited to attacks

on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

The Falklands are obviously not in Europe or North America and are located south of the Tropic of Cancer, thus outside the territories covered by Article 5.
from re d d i t b t w

>>32139803
>>32139309
to add,
Technically an attack on Alaska or the Hawaiian Islands wouldn't actually invoke and article 5 response as they were incorporated after the formation of NATO

It was pretty much a ROFLstomp anyway. And that's saying something since the Brits didn't have jack shit for a force. They really pulled it off.

A damn shame NATO didn't join in with the Brits.

Fucking Argies.

>>32139309
You can only invoke article V in attacks in North America, Europe or holdings above the tropic of cancer.

>>32139801
if I wasn't on my new computer I would post an apros reaction image show my humorous reaction to this statement

>>32139875
yea, because 30 years on we would have to listen to the Argies bitching about every member of NATO and not just the Brits.

>>32139925
That sounds magnificent.

Fuck them.

Maybe if they don't try to invade other people's lands they wouldn't have anything to complain about.

>>32139803
>The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus

Imagine how great the gurkha punching video would have been

I genuinly wanna know what the Argentinians were thinking. Didn't they know they would get btfo and if so why did they try anyway. Were they somehow forced or cornered? Excuse my ignorance on this war

>>32141505
>Turkey attacked Cyprus
>Turkey attacked all of NATO
>Turkey is part of NATO
>ergo, Turkey attacked itself
Q.E.D.

>>32141589
It was a political move to distract the population from the shitty state of the nation. Declare war, seize some disputed land and everyone forgets you are a shitty military junta running the nation in the ground.

The Argentinians legitimately thought that the British would not respond. All the Falklands has is sheep (and now landmines), not exactly the Kuwaiti oil fields. What they didn't realize is that the UK was also having internal problems and Thatcher saw the war as an opportunity for the same flag-rallying that the Argentinians wanted so she sent off the Royal Navy to invade some islands 4000 miles from the nearest British base and within range of enemy land based aircraft armed with some of the best AShM money could buy.

What it came down to was the fact the British fielded a professional force with competent staff officers and planning. The Argentinians were poor trained and leadership was even worse, unable to focus their efforts against the British or utilize their many advantages in logistics and numbers.

File: 1480309738877.jpg (29KB, 400x396px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 400x396px

>>32139801

>>32139309
NATO technically only covers wars above the equator.

>>32141589
They had a defensive position on an island 13,000km away from the UK.

They never thought they'd actually come and retake it.

>>32139828
Alaska is North America you dumb shit

black goo was all the reason down there

File: Call the gringos.jpg (25KB, 232x310px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 232x310px

>>32139801

>>32141589

At the time the British military was considered extremely weak in force projection, the islands of little value to them, and Argentina had a reasonably strong military with a far more advantageous position. It was purely political because the military junta was under a lot of scrutiny at the time and needed something to distract the people from real concerns. Anytime shit in Argentina starts going sideways expect the government to start going on about Las Malvinas Argentinas. We just saw it with Kirchner but she couldnt deflect enough attention or gain enough support to make a run at it despite plenty of sabre rattling.

>>32139309
Because we will never fight 1000s of kilometers for the sake of fucking anglos

>>32139309
Why would NATO support an offensive land grab operation off the Argentinian coast?

>>32142105
>British military was considered extremely weak in force projection

I wouldn't say at that point weak, but weakening. UK was seen (and was) retracting politically and militarily as it continued to give its colonies independence and downsize its military - Suez had crippled any self-confidence that it once had.

The Falklands War took place just before a critical mass point from a scathing defence cut. Had the Argentines waited only a year, they'd have a much greater chance.

>>32142312
>I wouldn't say at that point weak
It seemed weak, even it it wasn't. Ark Royal and Eagle had been decommissioned, along with Victorious a decade before. And Invincible was being considered for transfer to the RAN.

>>32139309

A better idea would be to ask the USA to confiscate all of Argentina's US made equipment (Say goodbye to those F-15s and retard bombs), and not give it back until they reprimanded the UK.

>>32142349
really makes you think

>>32141505
Cyprus isn't in NATO.

When NATO's Article 5 was drawn up, it was specifically written in a way that most colonial possessions (as many of the European members had at that time) would be excluded. So, when Goa was annexed by India (a friend of the USSR) in 1961, there was no possibility of its invocation, either.

>>32142349
So the better idea would be to have the US go to war with Argentina?

>>32139803
I guess China was lucky Hong Kong was never protected by article 5, the Brits could have actually kept the city if it was

>>32139309
Because Article 5 was specifically worded to not include attacks on colonies.

>>32142775
The free world should've supported an independent Hong Kong. A referendum there would've passed so easily.

Step two would of course been to liberate Guangzhou and reemerge as Nanyue, and admitting Macau as an autonomous zone. That would've crippled China's expansion and economic rise, and Nanyue would be too weak to claim the South China Sea, and the rise of Cantonese would make it and Mandarin less popular to learn, with their silly moonrunes.

>>32139309
French helped UK though.

>>32142291
Argentina isn't in NATO

>>32139309
Go and read Max Hasting's book. In short, fascist Argentina was being wooed by the US as part of it's anti commie strategy. Argies was also an influential nation in the South American organization (forgot name). In the end, Anglos stick together (just like jews).

>>32139309
Because if you ever made the effort to actually read the fucking article you'd knew it couldn't be invoked in that case.

>>32142113
Doesn't matter what you think cunt, if you're part of the group, you have to fight with the anglos

>>32142862
I still don't understand why UK just handover Hong Kong to communist China.

>>32143098
They tried to hide behind the lease of the land, even though that only covered a portion of Hong Kong, the rest was land permanently ceded to the Brits or land reclaimed from the sea by the Brits. They just knew that they couldn't defend it without serious foreign help and a fuckload of money.

The free world needs to take a much firmer stance with China.

#MakeGunboatDiplomacyGreatAgain

File: 1472494708866.png (85KB, 868x2004px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 868x2004px

>>32143098
Same reason they gave the Rhineland, Austria, and half of czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany. And all of Eastern Europe to the Soviets

APPEASEMENT

Why do people insist an armed man has to fist fight an unarmed attacker? Using the might of NATO would've been a PR disaster and would've burned USA's relations with Latin America.

>>32143149

It's more complex than that, China itself would have owned the waters around Hong Kong. Meaning they could do what they liked as you'd be sailing through their territory.

Maintaining a colony had become entirely untenable internationally. The political price was simply not worth it.

>>32143098
Because Hong Kong was leased to the British for a hundred years or so and the date had ended when Thatcher was around. NOT giving Hong Kong back would make the Brits seem as the aggressors and not as many nations would support them.

>>32143161
That's dumb.

The US wasn't the "United States" as it was a British colony, and they had not wanted representation at the time.

Palestine did get their independence.

Britain went to war when news reached the UK that the Germans invaded Poland.

Brits are sending British army equipment and older to Ukrainian forces.

>>32142349
Reprimanded? What are you trying to say?

>>32141589
thatcher removed tthe defending ship, they thought that was a sign there would be no defence. They were wrong and a lot of folk died to distract peopel from the economy. business as usually.
>>32141773
there are gas reserves, fishing grounds and it decides what chunk of the antarctic your nation 'owns'.
>>32143098
because it's fucking chinese & the lease was up

>>32139309
France gave to UK everything there was to know about the exocet missile and how to properly set up countermeasures against it.
Also there was an embargo on spare parts and weapons for the Etendard strike fighters.

>>32139801
Kek

>>32142349
>A better idea would be to ask the USA to confiscate all of Argentina's US made equipment (Say goodbye to those F-15s and retard bombs), and not give it back until they reprimanded the UK.
What on earth are you on about? F-15's?

>>32142889
I think the joke shot by you anon

File: Conqueror_jolly_roger.jpg (187KB, 800x1192px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 800x1192px

the brit were trying to keep the war as small and limited as possible while trying to look purely defense in their actions

there is a reason they set up an exclusion zone and shackled their nuclear submarines to set patrol zones inside said exclusion zone with orders not to shoot without permission rather than give their sub skippers free reign to close the SLOCs and bag as much argie shipping tonnage possible

or why they never gave the SAS the go ahead to raid the argie mainland to destroy airfields and C3 dispite the SAS wanting to

File: 1477549285299.jpg (15KB, 374x378px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 374x378px

>>32139801

>>32139801

Best in thread.

>>32139803

This is the official reason. The unofficial reason was that the Argentinians were kind-of/sort-of helping us vs Russia so we didn't want two allies fighting. Had Thatcher requested US assistance we might have given them some, but she knew better and I think preferred to handle things personally. She was Margaret fucking Thatcher, the Iron Lady of Albion. The Brits were perfectly capable of handling things themselves (as they did) so long as they had the political will to do so.

The Argentines knew that if we got drawn into the conflict, we'd side with Britain. Of course. So neutral was the best they could hope for.

>>32139846

Yeah at the time Britain was at the nadir of its power, so the victory was all the more impressive. That air strike with all the tankers was one of the great air operations of all time.

>>32141589

Britain had issues projecting force that far, but its organization, training, and professionalism are off the charts, especially compared to Argentina.

Really, the argentines' big mistake was that they underestimated British political will. And without Thatcher, they might not have tried to take them back at all. Labor was screaming for peace talks and letting them have it, and even her fellow conservatives had cold feet about fighting a war over them.

Oh, and one other thing. America doesn't really need allies to fight big wars overseas. But it does in some cases provide some value, and much more importantly you have diplomatic support and a sense of legitimacy, which is critical to the POLITICS of war. Britain fighting and winning alone proved to themselves and the world that they didn't need allies. They already had plenty of legitimacy. Allies would have cost them some of the pride and propaganda power of victory.

>>32144091
Thatcher actually chewed out Mitterrand and demanded all he had on the exocet. He caved and then bitched to his shrink about how mean she was.

>>32143098
>I still don't understand why UK just handover Hong Kong to communist China.

>Why didn't the UK oppose one of the largest armies in the world on the doorstep of their territory who were in the technical right.

I wonder

File: image.jpg (63KB, 748x435px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 748x435px

>>32139309
Better

>>32142862
Uh... Cantonese is a spoken dialect. The written language is the same whether you speak Mandarin or Cantonese. Mandarin is just a bastardization from the North, Cantonese is considered more authentic "Chinese" and is much more similar to middle chinese

>>32142862

We needed China against the Soviet Union, which was a much bigger and more direct threat.

The Soviets had forces amassed to "liberate" the entire European continent, and was sponsoring guerilla wars on every continent in the world except possibly Antarctica (and I wouldn't put smuggling AKs to penguins past them either). Plus the potential to nuke the world, of course. Even a hostile China isn't an existential threat the way the soviets were. China wants to assert their dominance in the region by crushing the koreans, japanese, vietnamese, and fillipinos. Oh, and re-conquering Taiwan. Bad things, certainly threats to world stability and US national interests, but not existential threats.

All of these threats are things America can easily deal with as it has in the past, via a network of military/economic alliances and some political will to face the Chinese down even when they're being bellicose. Just as with the Falklands, we can't win a war we don't show up to (and as in that case, the belief that we might NOT show up is how the war becomes possible in the first place).

Sometimes you support an ally of convenience to deal with a greater and more immediate threat. In fact, we'd supported the Soviets against Hitler for exactly that reason. A needless confrontation with China might have changed the entire complexion of the late Cold War. Victory can be expensive, and not just in money and manpower.

File: 1479971691602.gif (2MB, 217x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 217x217px

>>32139801

>>32145113
>they never gave the SAS the go ahead to raid the argie mainland to destroy airfields and C3 dispite the SAS wanting to

iirc there was a SAS operation but it fucked up and they ended up hoofing it back to Chile

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-17203398

>>32146274
Yes. I know.

>tfw you'll never be in a B52 over Buenos Aires listening to AC/DC and Whitesnake

>>32139801
Do you mean the first or second time?

>>32143098
>>32143149

It's a pretty dick move to renege on a completely stacked treaty tilted entirely in your favor

Secondly, Hong Kong is just about the definition of an indefensible position. It's entirely reliant upon mainland supply for just about everything, and all the harbor facilities face the mainland.

Lastly bear in mind when the UK was deliberating the handover they had just experienced a string of pretty bad rioting in HK.

By the time Tiananmen rolled around the UK was already committed to the handover unfortunately.

File: 800px-Argentine_A-4C_parked_during_Falklands_War_1982.jpg (81KB, 800x599px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x599px

>>32144309

Probably means the Douglas A-4 Skyhawks we gave the Argies. They performed damned well at their jobs, sinking a frigate and destroyer.

As for us playing possibly playing a role in the war; that's a major "Eh...". I mean, junta or no, Argentina are our allies in the same way that both South Korea and Japan are our allies in spite of the fact they loathe each other, and having allies fight each other altogether is dirty business.