Why is Argentina Boosting Air Force Spending?

Why doesn't the U.K. hand over the Falklands to Argentina? Like it gave up Hong Kong to China? It does not make much sense to me, for a country spend so much to keep a few tiny inconsequential islands in the South Atlantic, tens of thousands of miles away.
I feel geographical proximity, logistical difficulties and common sense should win over imperialistic and nationalistic blindness.

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

people are a bit strange about stuff like that, Ayan. For example, we wouldnt like to give up Kashmir now, would we? despite all those aspects being ticked off as you mentioned... :)

but then, there is the small matter of the falklands people wanting to stick with UK. Mind you, that never stopped them from doing what they want, such as they did with the diego garcia islands...

In one of my articles about how Israel has managed to undo the miracle victory of 1967 over the Arabs, I included this Barry Chamish interview with an Argentine Jew who is wanted by the Shabak. The following is Chamish introducing a man named Henry Gluksman, who now lives in Norway.

Gluksman claims the Shabak made attempts on his life and he was forced to flee Israel in the early 1980s. Argentinian-born Gluksman publicly accused Israel of being behind the Falklands War. "I discovered that it was Israel Aviation Industries that provided the Argentinian planes and missiles and it was they who sunk the Lancaster", he explained. "They convinced the Argentinian government that they could win the war for them".

Mr. Gluksman's motives for talking freely to me appear not to be ideological. He is an avowed Marxist.

I knew you were going to mention Kashmir :-)
Well, Kashmir is too straegically close to the Indian mainland, unline Falklands and the U.K. The political implications are too strong.

By pure profit and loss theory, I actually believe that India could and should hand Kashmir over to Pakistan/make it independent IF AND ONLY IF the long term LOSSES (or GAINS) of such an action are LESSER (or higher) compared to the losses (or gains) of keeping Kashmir (constant army expenditure, terrorism, lack of peace).

However, for India, I feel the long term socio-economic losses of giving Kashmir away to Pakistan would be greater than the heavy expenditure that India now incurs to keep Kashmir. Because Pakistan would feel emboldened and try to cause further mayhem and disintegration in India.

That's one major reason why India is not willing to give away Kashmir to Pakistan.

I agree with you on the part of the citizens of Falkland Islands not wanting to be a part of Argentina, and wanting to stick to the U.K.. That makes the score an even 1:1 probably (U.K.: Argentina)

Love and peace to all,
Ayan

A great, timely, "realPolitik" look at this, made all the more interesting because 1) Few others are talking about it and 2) Seems plausible.

The UK, for a number of reasons wants the Falkland Islands to remain British, but one obvious one is that in times of war, or heck even commerce, having a nearby outpost of your territory is VERY beneficial.

Ayan,

well, if we are talking about cost benefit analysis, then all bets are off, my friend, i can make CBA jump through hoops to justify what i want, lol.

But in terms of costs, take this for example, given the sea bed treaty underway, those falkland islands could be worth more than the british isles themselves given the possibility of POL around those islands. Now why would the brits let it go? :)

#5, thanks, Temple. Who knows, lol, just idle rumninations...