You seem to be forgetting historical precedent.
If you discover it, claim it, and populate it… it’s yours.
Human beings have been doing that since the beginning of time.
Moments before the crash

More





http://gizmodo.com/5899790/f+18-crashes-and-explodes-next-to-elementary-school-updating-live
And how would you describe the basis of British sovereignty over the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands?
Just like the Falklands, the UK claimed sovereignty (before anyone else) over the islands long before Argentina ever came into existence.
If it’s just a semantic argument, then why does Argentina demand it?
Answer, their bruised pride demands it (and their greed for the mineral rights).
You are asking for shared sovereignty because Argentina wants it, not because the people of the Falklands want it. This is nothing like India.
Your idea is like China coming to the UK and demanding shared sovereignty over India even though they (China) has no valid prior claim to India.
Really, you have to ask?
Argentina is demanding something that they have never had by denying something that the UK has historically had access to…. aka extortion.
In simpler terms, give me something you own or I will hurt you (economically). It does not get any simpler than that.
cough…. cough….
Iraq… Afghanistan..
Pot/kettle…
Where again is Iragi oil going? It sure aint the US.
That’s an argument that relies on rhetoric rather than rationality. Fact is, finding some middle ground is in the best interests of everyone involved and insisting that the other party back down gets you nowhere.
Again, the UK has nothing substantial to gain from “negotiation”, it’s extortion plain and simple.
Once you give a bully an inch, he’ll try and take a mile.
Extortion is extortion, no matter how you justify it.
Let’s not pretend that Argentina gives a flying flip about the inhabitants of the Falklands.
Their pride is hurt and they want the mineral rights.
It’s as simple as that.
I don’t see how the threat of unending extortion applies – once an agreement is reached, both parties are bound by it. Whatever support Argentina has today would quickly evaporate if it attempted to abrogate a treaty on frivolous grounds.
What I meant was that once the UK shows its weakness by giving into extortion, it opens itself up to other extortion and forced “re-negotiation”.
If there is am much oil in the area as they think then they can certainly afford to ignore Argentina.
History happened, deal with it.
Just because you are the closest landmass to an island, does not give you sovereignty over it when there are other people there that have been there longer than you and have a stronger claim.
Argentina is being petty & greedy and there is no excuse for international extortion.
The UK’s relationship with the rest of SA was just fine until Argentina started throwing a fit and stomping around like a 5 year old brat.
If I were the UK, I would flip Argentina the bird on principle alone. Once you give into extortion, it never ends.
Where did I say that? All I stated was what is included with each block and to progress of those blocks.
The majority of the work to be done is the VALIDATION of the work that has been completed, not the work itself.
So let me get this straight:
The Falklands have had access to SA ports for over 100 years without problems. Now you are telling them that in order to use them, they have to give up it’s sovereignty and mineral rights.
In case you are wondering, that is called extortion.
As far as a solution goes – an ideal compromise would be to allow Argentina certain (negotiable) rights within the islands’ EEZ and turn sovereignty of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands over to Argentina (which in turn would grant British scientific teams unfettered access).
How is that an “ideal compromise”?
A negotiation/compromise implies that both parties get something in the deal. What does the UK gain? They already have everything they want.
This is like negotiating with a thief to only give up one of the cars and be happy to be left with the other.
To cut your claim short. With blk 2 software we have a combat mission ready F-35. Just for curiosity and surplus money at hand there are a blk 3a followed by blk 3b some years later?!
You are over simplifying the issue. While Blk2 adds official combat capability, Blk1 could drop JDAMs and launch AMRAAMs if it wanted to.
You need to do more research as your basic knowledge on the F-35’s capabilities is lacking.
A majority of the software is in Block 0.1 and 0.5 (a total of 67%). Blk 1 only adds another 19% (86% total), Blk 2 adds 10% (96% total) and finally, Blk3 adds only 4% to the software total.
btw, Blk0.5 has most of the sensor integration, so it’s far beyond just fbw. Here is a chart that shows what Blk0.5 is (LRIP1&2 are Blk1).

Blk 3 is the smallest block (only about 4% of the software). It seems large due to it being mostly dedicated to weapons integration, but the real workhorse Blks are 0.5 and 1 due to the integration issues (both of which are flying).
btw, They have started training on Blk 1, not Blk2A. The original plan was to start training on Blk0.5, but decided on Blk1 instead. It was never Blk2A.