Yasna wrote:It's a little more complicated than that Mr. Genius.
Sure it is. Among other things, empires became too expensive to maintain, mercantilism was no longer profitable, colonies didn't want to be ruled by a foreign power without their consent (hey, look, just like the Falklanders) and the balance of power was moving towards a bipolar system anyway. But World War II hastened all of these changes and was the final blow to imperialism. (Except Soviet imperialism, maybe.)
You can argue the "tyranny of distance" makes it harder for Britain to hold onto the Falklands in the long run, but I'm not convinced it's all that relevant in a globalized, technologically advanced world. At any rate it doesn't seem to have ever prevented Russia from holding onto their Far East territories or given the USA any trouble keeping their claim on Hawaii.
It appears that you overlooked what I was replying to, which was Lazar's claim that the U.S. would probably intervene if Falkland War 2.0 breaks out.
mōdgethanc wrote:But they don't need to. They didn't last time, as you seem to be have overlooked.