90514.jpg)
The Falklands War ended with a decisive British victory over thirty years ago. Nevertheless, the war remains alive in the imagination of analysts and historians. Although the conflict happened outside of the normal “zones of crisis,” it has long held the attention of students of warfare. The war, which involved a conflict over territory between two established nation-states with large, capital intensive military establishments, seems almost quaint today. However, the issues that brought about the war, the manner in which the war was fought, and the situation the war left behind continue to hold important lessons for practitioners of foreign policy today.
The Belgrano
The Falklands War
remains the only conflict in which a combatant has used a nuclear submarine, in
anger, against naval targets. On May 2, 1982, HMS Conqueror detected the Argentine cruiser General
Belgrano and two escorts
outside a previously announced “exclusion zone.” The British had informed
Argentina that the exclusion zone no longer applied to Argentine warships, and
Belgrano was conducting an active military patrol at the time. Conqueror fired
three unguided torpedoes, two of which struck the venerable cruiser, sinking it
with 323 of its crew. The sinking hardened Argentine attitudes, and ended
any serious effort at international mediation.
Over the years,
the sinking of the Belgrano has
set the stage for some
truly terrible commentary, much of it centering on the role played
by Margaret Thatcher. Partisans point to Thatcher’s keen decisiveness in
ordering the attack, when in fact Thatcher had virtually no role in the
tactical decision-making. Critics (most with a poor understanding of the
Law of Armed Conflict) suggest that the sinking amounted to a war crime. Such
claims would need to look up to see “specious,” and the Argentine Navy has
always held that the sinking represented a lawful act of war.
Nevertheless, the
enduring controversy over the sinking of the Belgranohas become emblematic of the ways
in which conventional acts of war have become legally complex.
Policymakers and military personnel pay ever greater attention to the ways in
which tactical decision-making has become legally actionable in a variety of
different venues. Even relatively conventional military activities have become
subject to litigation, often decades later.
Apart from legal and
political considerations, the sinking of Belgranodemonstrated the decisive impact of
modern submarines. Without an effective anti-submarine capability, a
surface fleet faces grim prospects. After Belgrano sank, the Argentine
fleet largely refused to sortie out of fear of other British submarines.
This concern continues to color the efforts of the Chinese, Russian, and Indian
navies to shore up their anti-submarine capabilities.
Legal Irredentism
The legal issues
associated with ownership of the Falklands remain turgid. Without delving
too deeply into the claims and counter-claims, the United Kingdom probably
has the stronger argument on balance,
although London’s periodic disinterest in governing the islands has helped keep
Argentine hopes alive. The meat of Argentina’s claim lies mostly in the
reality that the islands are far closer to Buenos Aires than to the United
Kingdom, which comports with a variety of international obligations associated
with maritime governance. The issues remain of interest to many other countries
because of the plethora of conflicts over the historical ownership of disputed
islands.
One thing we know
is that virtually
no one currently living
in the Falklands wants to be Argentine. It’s unclear how much this matters,
however, as states regularly ignore the preferences of 1600 citizens when it
suits them to do so. The United Kingdom focuses on the self-determination
point, although it does not apply the principle with consistency to all
international disputes.
In any case, Argentina’s
draped-in-anti-colonial-rhetoric claimsregularly win the support of
most Latin American countries, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the
Argentina population. These same claims continue to find little support
in the United Kingdom, with most European countries remaining distinctly on the
sidelines. Debates over the law continue to structure how we look at the
islands, but apparently cannot determine which country will control the islands
in the future. This state of affairs is reminiscent of a host of other
conflicts, in which the law sets the terms without charting a useful
settlement.
Minimal Carrier Aircraft
During the war, the Argentine Air Force
wielded not only gravity-bombs but also French-made Exocet anti-ship missiles
to deadly effect, sinking and damaging several British warships. Lacking
local bases, the Royal Navy relied on the Siddeley Hawker Harrier, which turned
in a legendary performance against Argentine aircraft. The
performance-constrained carrier fighters provided the only possible air cover
for the British task force, given that the Royal Navy had retired its last
conventional carrier in 1979. Operating from HMS Hermes and HMS
Invincible, the Harriers had a powerful effect on Argentine decision-making,
deterring them from launching airstrikes during the day, and creating
significant problems for Argentina’s short ranged air superiority aircraft.
The success of the
Harrier, in many minds, confirmed the value of the Sea Control Ship, a small
carrier that lacked the capacity to launch fixed wing jet aircraft but that
could nevertheless support an expeditionary task force. The F-35B
concept, designed to operate either from small carriers or from flat-decked
amphibious assault ships, stems in large part from the Falklands experience.
The role played by the Harriers continues
to form the core of a nasty historical dispute between the Royal Navy and the
Royal Air Force. The RAF focuses on the role played by its long-range
Vulcan bombers, de-emphasizing the importance of the Harriers. Indeed,
the RAF
successfully offered the
RN’s Harriers up for budgetary sacrifice in 2010. This left the Royal
Navy with no carrier-borne fighter aircraft at all, a situation that will
remain until HMS Queen Elizabeth (presumably with F-35Bs) enters service later
this decade.
Conventional War against a Nuclear Power
Why did Argentina
pick a fight with a country that had nuclear weapons? In short, Buenos
Aires realized that the chance of Britain using such weapons in a territorial
dispute was remote. This hardly sounds unreasonable, but think
about it; the Argentines were so confident that Britain would not use an
obviously decisive, war-winning weapon, that they decided to attack under the
slimmest of conventional margins, despite lacking any clear guarantee of
extended deterrence from another nuclear power. This suggests that, by
1982, the “nuclear taboo” had so taken hold that nuclear states could not rely
on their arsenals to protect them from conventional foes. This confirmed
what Israel had learned in 1973; whatever their merits, nuclear weapons cannot,
in and of themselves, deter attack from conventional powers.
This ought to hold
some lessons for modern appreciation of the utility of nuclear weapons.
If nukes don’t even immunize a country from direct attack on its declared
territory, then they probably don’t grant outsized influence over the politics
of an entire region. This isn’t to say, for example, that anyone ought to
support the nuclear aspirations of Iran, but it does suggest that the eventual
outcome of the Iranian nuclear project will likely be less than cataclysmic.
Unsettled Wars
Wars are supposed
to solve problems, if not in the sense of creating justice, then at least in
terms of establishing a new
political, legal, and military reality. Indeed, both victory and
defeat can give nations a chance to move on, establish new priorities, and
resolve immediate issues of conflict.
The United Kingdom
undoubtedly won the Falklands War, as Argentina ceased hostilities after the
recapture of the islands, and the Argentine government fell a short time
later. For a time, the war resolved the question of whether or not the
United Kingdom had the interest and capacity to defend the Falklands from
Argentina.
But as far as
Buenos Aires is concerned, the war settled nothing. Argentina still
claims the islands, and no conceivable government could give up that claim,
especially with reports of energy wealth along the continental shelf. For
its part, London’s political commitment to the islands is stronger now than in
1982.
In short, like
many conflicts the Falklands War failed to settle the basic, stage-setting
political dispute. Argentina continues to believe it ought to govern the
islands, while the United Kingdom continues to feel responsibility for them.
While Argentina continues to struggle with its financial system, it cannot buy
a military that can reconquer the Falklands. But as long as the British economy
stagnates, it cannot permanently end Argentina’s dream of unification.
The conflict remains unresolved, until the stars align and Argentina once again
sees some advantage in the prospect of war.
Conclusion
The war is
slipping into legend. In the United Kingdom, sparring over the war’s legacy
revolves around an evaluation of Margaret Thatcher, as well as the endless
conflict between the RAF and the RN. In some Argentine quarters, the
narrative of treachery has taken hold; President Kirchner called the sinking of General
Belgrano “criminal” in 2012,notwithstanding the lack of any
compelling case for malfeasance. Nevertheless, the Falklands remains the
world’s most recent, most modern example of combined naval-air combat.
Until the end of the missile age, it will continue to hold lessons for analysts
and policymakers. And for the foreseeable future, London and Buenos Aires
will continue to contest ownership of the islands.
Robert Farley
NationalInterest.Org, September 8,
2014
Robert Farley is an
assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International
Commerce. His work includes military doctrine, national security, and maritime
affairs. He blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money and Information Dissemination and
The Diplomat.
"Why did Argentina
pick a fight with a country that had nuclear weapons?"
Read the answer click here : https://www.createspace.com/5018151
