chapotraphouse

I don't know if it'll be popular here mind you!

I think the Falklands War was justified, yes. The island has only ever been settled by British people and there is no indigenous population beforehand. There is no valid legal claim from Argentina through Spain to the island, and, above all else, the islanders (as the original settled people) want to overwhelmingly remain British. As a fervent believer in the right to self-determination, that alone makes it worth defending by force (ethically speaking). The island is of little strategic use (the British govt probably would've given it up eventually if the Argentines had not invaded-they were willing to negotiate on the issue) and it's only important now because of the war!

So the Argentine junta invades and occupies the islands + mistreats the islanders for its own domestic reasons. Attempts at rapid diplomacy failed and the Argentines had no intention of withdrawing. Thatcher sees it as a great political opportunity and goes to war and the British win.

Many years later, as if to confirm this right to self-determination, a referendum on the status of the islands is done in 2013. Literally only 3 people vote against remaining part of the UK as an overseas territory. Bare in mind yet again that there is no indigenous population and it is not a settler-colonial society as such. I think the protection of the right to self-determination against an aggressor by force of arms is justified. I know Thatcher used it for her own political purposes, but there was realistically no other choice that would have ended in a more moral/ethical situation.

It just being nearer to Argentina is not a valid claim whatsoever and makes no serious sense.