Comments by "VisibilityFoggy" (@VisibilityFoggy) on "Could Argentina take over the Falklands today? (2017)" video.

@amandafranks5108 - The US and UK generally have technology transfer agreements, so an "American" or "British" weapons system is often redeveloped domestically before being deployed. The U.S., for example, almost completely redesigned the Harrier and still uses it. The Brits did a lot of customizations on the Apache helicopter and even (to an extent) navalized it, which the U.S. never did. The F-35 has plenty of British tech in it (as does the Saab Gripen-E, which the UK blocked Argentina from purchasing from Sweden). Most NATO systems are somewhat "Frankenstein" in nature today – which is a good thing. We want our equipment to work together seamlessly in combat. I don't understand why anyone in either of these countries would not want to benefit from the hard work of its ally.
4
@Richard-r7u6c - Regardless, I would find it next to impossible that either the UK or US would take such a monumental step as launching a nuclear strike without the other knowing. FWIW, I've never heard of the UK requiring American permission to launch its missiles, or vice-versa. Countries rent equipment from each other all the time. Canada, for example, is now renting F/A-18 Hornet fighters from Australia as a stop-gap until they decide if they want F-35s or a cheaper fourth-gen platform. But they don't need to call Canberra every time they do something. This isn't particularly unusual or remarkable. It's probably simply easier to send the missiles to the U.S. for maintenance than to build a facility and train staff capable of doing that in the U.K. for a small number of them.
3
@Ingens_Scherz - Which American naval aircraft "don't work?" At the moment, there is basically only one – the F/A-18 Super Hornet, which is old, but works fine and is built like a flying tank. The RAF is utilizing Eurofighters and F-35s (which are technically "American," although BAE had a ton of say in it), both of which are great planes. But speaking of a bloody fortune, the Tempest program is going to make a lot of US programs look cheap by comparison, though you'll have an amazing sixth-gen fighter for yourselves and for potential export. You get what you pay for.
2
@rhysgoodman7628 - In fairness, I don't think a ton of people in the UK could recite the history of the US's smaller conflicts like Panama or Grenada. Why would they particularly care? Personally, I care about this because I'm a news/history/foreign policy junkie, but in the absence of that, I'm not sure I'd pay attention to 10-week-long British military operations that happened 35 years ago.
2
@diepiepew12 - No offense, but Mexico is practically a failed narco-state at this point (more the fault of its politicians than people, but that's beside the point). Having spent a great deal of time in Latin America, Colombia, Argentina and Uruguay are the "best things" in the region. Argentina is actually a very beautiful, modern, safe place in my experience.
1