The Plan to Build an Island Using Only Electricity 

Yeah, i was thinking that the whole time, though maybe using a mesh instead of a solid block of metal might yield better results?

@@davidtitanium22 Or better yet, a series of fine meshes.

As someone who did a lot of research in high efficiency ice making system, this is absolutely true. Once a layer of ice is formed over the copper tubes, the process slows down tremendously. Same can be said for electrolysis, a layer of CaCO2 will insulate and prevent further electrolysis or at least slow down. Same happens with rust

But from that point, the living corals take over and do the heavy lifting

It's not hard to imagine some kind of ultra sonic vibration that would clean the accreted layer off, keeping the cathode operating more efficiently. Of course, you lose the accretion, so why would we want to do that? Well, if it fell into deeper water so it wouldn't be pulverized by wave action to nothing, that calcium carbonate would sequester C02. In reality, I think that's not the most practical way to sequester C02. To make a real impact maybe it would take far too many of these floating platforms. Just a thought. It would be kind of neat if all Hilbertz' research was fruitless in terms of his objectives, but bore fruit for another purpose.

😂 nice pulls but the quote is “water and electric don’t mix”.

You dont know about eletric shower kkkkk

​@@tacticlolit's electricity

​@tacticlol you don't speak English very well do you bud because electric makes no sense while electricity is not only the actual quote. It actually makes grammatical sense

Actually, pure water and "electricity" are fine, as pure water is a VERY good insulator. Seawater is far from that. Seawater is an excellent conductor and the various anodization processes should be explored. As a result of anodization and deposition, hydrogen is produced, which is handy as hell.

Man, just gave me an Idea of Marinepunk 2077

@@reymichaelzornosa7561 Kind of reminds me of the early 90’s sci-fi series SeaQuest.

​@@reymichaelzornosa7561solar punk 2077

@@mridlon1634 back when tech was a boring topic and things were intended to work, sci-fi seemed like something actually doable😊 now we have celebrity billionaire tech bros imploding inside a cheaped out sub 😮‍💨

As a kid we would leave rusty metal rods shaped in the First letter of our names Forced into gaps in the Sea wall. (Scottish east coast) Over the summer holidays, When you came back to it it was twice as thick with white minerals. That crumbled off like cement on rebar Without using electricity.??? Great to see they have worked on this

There is something romantic about it, isn't there. Especially with the end credits showing the pictures he took. RIP Prof. Wolf, he dared to dream.

"If it weren't for you, this guy and his dream may have been forgotten by history". As interesting as this episode is, maybe it would have been better not to bring this story back to life 🤔 I mean - what if it spreads and some corporation eventually do continue prof. Hilberts' work but this time with success. I'm aware usually that kind of projects don't start after watching a YT video, but you never know.. Butterfly effect.. Chaos theory ; )

I even think it has a place in applied tech, these islands could help ease the housing market issues without destroying more ecosystems on land and allowing the reclamation of marshes and what not that we now deal with as well as being a way to help corals and provide better storm protection without using fossil fuels like concrete does It needs to just have substantial ecological restrictions on locations/activities and they need to be tied to a government and not be autonomous they could even make things like free floating fish farming better The tech itself is great but the idea he had was... not so great

​@@JayPixx Yes, how awful would it be if while trying to make money, corporations were to stop ocean acidification and remove tons of carbon dioxide from the biosphere.

@@markkelly6259 Exactly, and that's a point I think a lot of people miss nowadays -- if we want to save the planet, we need to give companies a way to profit from it. I mean, there are a lot of companies that make profit on perpetuating human suffering. Let's find ways to make companies profit on lessening it. Then, of course, there comes the issue of what we do when that lessening has worked and the companies have no more incentive.

island pro

the biggest mistake was the plan. It has about 50 holes in it and relies on a theoretical bottomless money supply

I was thinking that heading out during a storm and not having to have any actual results was part of the plan.

The beginning of the video discusses how his initial plan was near the coast of Tunisia & Italy. And governments likely wouldn't trust him after he'd already stated his larger ambitions.

@@clownpendotfart see that what I was referencing, like his first attempt was trying to do something crazy just outside of the technical jurisdiction of these countries. He wanted to build an island right from the get go and he wanted to do it in international waters. I don’t see why he didnt just go to some coastal town in America or Europe and go “hey is it okay if I put a big metal thing a mile or so off one of your beaches? It’s a coral growth experiment” just as a proof of concept that his idea worked so he could start attracting investors like he wanted After all, that was all his goal really was anyway when he went out into the middle of the ocean. Drop some metal struts and a solar panel and leave.

I think the "electric-aided coral protection" thing is done in multiple places.

​@@tommykarrick9130I think he was afraid of not having enought time in his life.

That's because it's delusional bullshit. These projects fail because they are stupid money pits not because "they" won't allow ill-conceived pipe dreams to threat the status quo. We build shit and do business in the ocean plenty, oil platforms are only one example. Most likely he just lacked the competence or patience or funding to go through regulations, if he even tried that. Man doesn't understand EEZs and thinks an island would somehow magically be out of reach of *the Navy* has more then enough red flags to say don't waste your money on him.

i saw your videos, they are great! is there a place where you have your thesis? i would love to explore it further! thank you

@@mlg_skrublord Thank you for your comment. I will try to publish the pdf presentation online and upload the link soon.

🤔Did you remove this “movie”? I don’t see it there…

@@Sedgewise47 I did not, it’s called Maritime research center

Did you produce hydrogen chloride gas during your electrolysis of salt water? Also, how solid was the material produced, compared to coral or basic marine concrete?

it could probably done.. but not like this. And the reality is it is probably far far cheaper to simply produce concrete forms and dump them in the ocean.

@@charlesreid9337 If I remember right there was a show on Al jazeera called Earthrise that had talked about doing this. Cremet blocks would be put into the ocean in key places to regrow coral and then they would run electricity through some parts to speed up the process like cybertecture.

How would you do it? Why don't you pursue it? What skills and experiences do you have that would be applicable to such an endeavor? How do you feel about non-coral undersea habitats? Is it the coral aspect, or the undersea habitat that interested you?

@dfsfsdfd build a shell and a tethered float. Yake the shell where you want to place it, sink it, attach solar panels and a wind generator to the surface float. And allow it to grow. If I had the funds and the resources, I would try it myself.

@@greylocke100 Hey Mark, it's not the lack of funding or resources, it is the lack of a team. I had the same lone wolf mentality for a while, but now I am part of a group of nobodies pooling our respective skills together to create our work. It started with one old dude who started working on his dream, managed to get some results to put together a presentation for a convention in our sphere (not actually hard to present at conventions, they'll take anyone who has something related at the smaller ones), I saw it on RU-vid and reached out, then another guy from RU-vid comments found our group and joined, and then another member who was a specialist impressed that our group was actually doing something (you'll find many groups just talk big but don't have any meat or taters) and he joined, then another, etc. Now we have a core group of systems specialists, myself included as the AI guy, building the core tech, then people doing the logos and all that public facing garbage, networkers, etc. As a group of nobodies we are going to be presenting our work to several conferences this month, and grant applications are being filed by those in our group who know about that stuff. You can do it, you just need determination, direction, tangible systems, and a good team. I'm not sure what the KTD project is, I saw you demonstrate some stuff but have no idea what it actually is or is meant to do, but it is apparent you have technical skills so designing and working on a particular subsystem of the project I don't doubt you can do. Our main guy outlined his vision, then set about working on one sub-system of it while presenting the entire vision plus what work he has done. Even if you are capable of doing everything, reality doesn't give enough time, so if you are willing to present your vision (important, like wtf is KTD??? Doing more digging than the average person and I don't know, gotta make the vision crystal clear or people won't care), work at it, show results, and accept others into your project as collaborators to build the other sub-systems needed to make your whole system I fully believe you can do it. Check out the Seasteading Institute, those are the type of organizations/people you want to reach out too for exposure/funding. Who knows, maybe someday the Band-Maid will play in one of your underwater structures?

"we no longer combine biology with technology - instead technology stole another thing from biology and threw actual nature out" :/

You should have kept watching.

@@KeithZim yeah the first definition he gives is ambiguous, but in the end it's clearer

@@busimagen so what you mean is that beehives are basically our first success at cybertecture, in principle?

I remember seeing a documentary about that a few years ago. The biological-like designs, I mean.

All it would've taken was one sunny day to change the world....

I'd love to read a scifi novel out from this concept of ocean cities. Prof. Wolf Hilbertz expedition actually made me think of Captain Nemo from Jules Verne's Twenty Thousand Leagues under the seas. 😃

True, but it would have to be fully made of accretion, since there's no telling if corals can grow there

Doubt it. The names of that region suggest that they were named in the early 1800s, probably found when trying to map the magnetic traces of the Atlantic's plate tectonics. Since Ampere formulated the first physical law of magnetic force resultant from electrical current, a lot of stuff has been named after him.

@@Smo1k yeah, This guy just amped it up a bit! ;-) Apt tho'..

Watt a good pun! Will this make the reef into a transformer?

And the corporations would not exploit it once established to strip mine the area out of the goodness of their obsidian hearts.

The issue is that farming isn't insanely profitable. Like, you look at the dude on the tractor and you know he's not exactly making a killing. Add in how insane the startup costs for this would be, and just the difficulty of doing stuff in the water and it's hard to see these operations working out for farms. At first you might be able to live off of farming some rare and exotic stuff, but if it is profitable more people will enter the field until you're no longer doing anything unique and then it goes right back to being not profitable enough to justify investing in it.

Boring

@@tortex1 Obsidian hearts - lol - most applicable metaphor

@@_viresh_ you're boring

Cybersyn vibes

Like a cookie!

ur mum

@@J3dstar your two dads...

Hope it's not doughy in the middle though ❤

Unless the foundational structure fails, at least there's no danger of sinking. How these mineral columns hold up over time would be key. Do they crack and fall apart, or do they become permanent solid rock? But there are low-lying inhabited island all over the world that endure their local storm seasons, so it can't be that difficult a problem. Probably the biggest long term danger is rogue waves and tsunamis.

This is not connected to any actual research institution and this is not how most scientific funding occurs. This kind of thing is limited to the pet projects of a handful of rich eccentrics or eccentrics who convince charities with money to entertain their pet ideas. In most cases, the general public doesn’t hear about the expeditions and results of actual scientific organizations, because one actually has to go out and seek this information, and the researchers have no need to involve the public in what is mostly a conversation among peers. In cases such as this, publicity is key to the entire operation, because it’s funded by a charity that relies on donations from members of the general population.

"It's very interesting how often a scientific expedition has some business visionary involved behind the scenes," 99%+ don't.

People think what social media shows then represents reality, even in 2023... Don't we know yet it's all one big advertisement? That it hides anything not related to profit?

I also talked about it briefly in my last video, as well as in my video on why dodo's went extinct, so I believe this brings us up to 7 times!

@@AtlasPro1 So you're almost there! Just 3 more videos to go. And once this goal is reach, let's play it safe for now and just go for 15. Assuming you haven't run out of stuff to talk about before then.

Sadly as I understand there's a definite possibility in the near future for the oceans to acidise too much for the structure to hold together properly. It has already been observed in several areas that marine life has had trouble growing their shells

​@@houndofculann1793that's the beauty of using electricity, as far as i understand it. It changes the local chemistry enough to make it much easier for life to mineralize stuff. As i understand it, this could be the thing that saves some marine life from acidification. I we added active shade, it might even protect them from overheating water. (keep away some sun, let the heat radiate during the night)

@@nos9784 easier to mineralise perhaps, but what happens when the electricity use stops? I thought the point was to use this to build but there was no mention of maintentance in the video, and if that is ever in tended to not have constant energy usage then acidification is a serious potential problem for that too.

@@houndofculann1793 if the electricity stops, yes, it will be as soluble as any similar material. The whole thing bets on people doing maintenance. And maybe you are right, this might be less viable in a 420+ ppm co2 world. I hope that well- established corral at that point would be more resilient anyway, And that humans who stop maintaining their solar panels don't need their structures any longer. Concerning maintenance, almost anything needs maintenance- supplying a low current is pretty cheap, compared to other forms of maintenance. Building for eternity and no maintenance has higher upfront cost, and might not be (economically or at all) possible.

@saifors This research needs to continue as I am sure about one thing… The future will definitely have more dykes!

they tried it in Dubai, which is already a testament to human hubris, lol.... it just sank, and was worthless.

destroying marine habitats for no gain

This isn't the first seasteading grift, and it won't be the last. The main issue is one of purpose; why the hell would you want to go live on a manmade island in the middle of the ocean with no infrastructure or fresh water? The answer to that question is nearly always something stupid, most often involving a bunch of rich weirdos trying to avoid paying taxes.

@@a.p.2356 Islands already exist, and normal people live on them, heck some of those islands have an active volcano that explodes every year, and people still live on them. It's not infeasible that a large ever growing island, with infrastructure already built into the design of the island to become a living location for decently sized populations of humans.

Red flags go up to me when his barrier that no nations would let him stopped him? Why would he not just get a nation to sponsor his project as a proof of concept and just let it remain in the jurisdiction of a mother country but as a "special economic zone" territory? If the option had legs and seemed realistic then finding a location would not be that hard if he involved investors from said mother country. He was shopping for the right level of not too smart but not too dumb to fall for his investment idea when the money really went God only knows. The offshore oil rights alone would salivate countries to invest in this. (Build island that you claim as your own for a green energy self sustaining city project in the middle of the ocean where large oil reserves happen to be. Then claim 13 miles out from that island and boom free billions of dollars of oil. The project does not even have to be real it just needs to seem real.)

what would people eat. What would they do for a living.What do you do with waste (sewage ,trash). Where do you get power. Who will choose to live underwater in a perpetually dangerous environment at 10x the cost. This is a fun concept but , like living on mars, would be a nightmare in reality

scroll up to my comment. IT relates to an architecture prize to provide homes for the poor and it outlines the problem with this project.

I don't think there would be a significant impact on the climate itself, sure It helps the environment but I don't see how it would reduce pollution on the ocean or make the climate more stable

Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. Sahara was a savanna until humans turned it into a desert 5000 years ago lmao

​@@chucknorris277And people died on mass everytime that happen. Let's not be dumb

@@chucknorris277 How did humans change it to desert 5000 years ago?

@@emceeboogieboots1608not that many, but hearding grazing animals killed the grass that helped absorb the rainwater and keep the air tolerably warm.

I worry about the large- scale implications. What happens when we remove minerals from the oceans? How big is the ocean, would we ever realistically do it on a harmful scale? Does it release co2? (propably not, if it kickstart coral growth and therefore biomass growth) I hope this gets more research, because i hope it might replace quite a bit of pre-fab concrete, aside from seastading and helping marine ecosystems.

@@nos9784 "Does it release co2?" I'm no expert, but I think that the formation of calcium carbonate actually absorbs CO2 from the water, so at industrial scale it might help to sequester CO2 and reduce ocean acidification (some research suggests that currently the oceans are buffering CO2 rise in the atmosphere at the cost of increasing acidification of the water). It would take an awful lot of limestone formation (and huge amounts of energy) to have an impact though. I don't have any references, but the last I'd heard this type of accretion is impractical due to the insulating effect of the built-up layers. I'm also skeptical that the structure would age well due to the embedded metal which may tend to corrode and expand, fracturing the brittle shell. A great deal more research and development would be necessary to turn it into a practical industrial-scale building technique.

We are nature

Sad? Those arethe reasobs we are still alive

@@filip9564 ah yes, the colonised peoples of the world were famously struggling to live when the gracious white man arrived to show them the errors of their ways

​@@TAP7aI think he means broadly in the sense of humanity colonizing the entirety of the earth, dipass

you somehow missed the whole "until they need replacing" thing. Zinc anodes are sacrificial and arent used for acretion.. just the opposite

😂😂 what? 'protecting nature by isolating it from human intervention will fail because the people who believe that tend to not have kids'? that doesn't even make the slightest sense. and ehy then would that leave us with no choice but the other one? yes protecting through interaction could work. indigenous communities around the world have done that for ages. but therein lies the problem, the typical rural/suburban idea of connecting with nature is not it, and is even worse than just living in a city. unless you can make millions of people entirely change their lifestyle similar to that of indigenous communities, the 'protection by interacting' will only destroy nature even further. i do agree though that this idea might be very useful for coastal nations, instead of trying to prop it up in the middle of nowhere

having kids is probably the least effective means of passing on ideas to later generations lol

You know it would be someone who wants to form a cult where they do unspeakable things to women and children. Just sayin

I will.

@@skeetsmcgrew3282Is this a reference to something or?

Its a reference toward Jeff the Epstein

Have you priced a solar panel lately? FAR cheaper to do this with concrete. Or old car bodies or just about anything else. And you dont use thin strips of iron the people who did it successfully used chicken wire. Economics takes all factors into account, which people miss for some reason. IF concrete or an old car body are cheaper it is a superior solution.

I suppose they would've drowned the structures underwater and then brought them above.

Electrified reefs are very much a thing that's still being done. Turns out that the coral growing on them is a lot more resistant to bleaching.

Yeah, I don't really see the concept being feasible. Not only is it limited to working underwater, it was only successful in creating the initial layer of substrate. Relying on natural coral to grow would take decades and then there is the question of what happens to the coral once it finally does reach a suitable size. I saw a video on how researchers were propagating reefs using this technique so that aspect of his work is still going strong. It didn't mention anything about how it originated as an idea for a construction project though, so I found this particularly interesting. On a somewhat related topic, there is an archeological site called Nan Madol in Micronesia that was built on a coral reef. It's a very unusual megalithic construction, as it's built with columnar basalt - similar to a log cabin, but the logs are made of rock. There are many unanswered questions about how, when and why it was constructed. A fascinating subject in its own right, but definitely supports the idea of coral serving as the base of island formation.

@@Shin_Lona you're definitely the part of the "i want it now" generations. This isnt factory or mass production. And it has been done for multiple purposes. The idea is you place a low cost form underwater and provide it somehow with small amounts of electricity over a very longtime to allow it to grow. Years. Not days or months.

Pumping up water and let in run over the pipes. This shouldn't even aquire electricity if a pipe system with variable diameters is using the waves kinetic energy. Not fast, maybe not efficient, just in pace with everything else in this idea.

I was thinking along the same lines, maybe cables would work better than welding pipes together. I'm sure there's a way to do it, it's a matter of funding for more experts and planning so that the execution is actually efficient enough to make it possible. I also think it could make more money as a tourist spot instead of destroying the place with mining. Would love to see something like this done right.

I was imagining oil platform style

It is much cheaper to bring in the raw materials than to prefab and shipped in a container. For every one he prefab and shipped, he could probably build 4 or 5 on sight for the same price. You would also control the quality. He seemed to be the kind of guy that liked to be in control of everything around him, including the people.

@@theadventuresofbrockinthai4325 I can see the truth in that since prefabs would mean delivering air. But I would guess that if he wasn't limited to 3 ships it would have still been the best option instead of staying at sea for so long.

I think they should have used wire, not profile. You can just twist it into 3d structures. (triangular pyramid grids would be easiest), And that would then get encrusted in mineral. Similar to reinforced concrete. These days, we are much further with floating photovoltaics... this way, you wouldn't need a strong tower. worth another try, i'd say :)

and bamboo

Also adobe. None of those are waterproof, though. Living trees are- and living architecture is a (small) thing in different places around the world. The "taking out dissolved calcium" thing worries me, too, as does the question whether this stores or releases CO2. More research is needed, i think.

​​@@nos9784I'm more concerned about what happen to ocean life that uses dissolved mineral to build their own shell. Its not like the ocean has infinite amount of minerals.

@@zedantXiang afaik, the ocean has a _practically_ inexhaustible supply of minerals. Enough that constant sedimentation of coral and seashells does not hurt the rest of them. Of course, forrests were practically inexhaustible too, before we used them for fuel and ships on a large scale. I think this is great tech. And wether it harm the environment does not depend on whethe we use it or not, but on whether we manage to stop thoughtless exploitation in general. I guess we'll know in 100 years. Until then: afaik, what harms biooogical calcium accretion is ph, not concentratin. So reducing our co2 emissions is a better way to help- and mineral accretion might help. Also, this process seems to change the local chemistry- makes it easier to get that calcium. It does not compete- it just makes it easier, locally. Of course, this needs more research, and descisions by people who know that research- and that's not me.

@@nos9784 I'm not concerned whit the oceab running out,I': concerned whit the locsl ocean running out,temoorarely of minerals,especially in the first few years. 5 year of low mineral content can make entire specie go extinct,whit huve ramification down the food chain.

I mentioned the forest atop Mount Mabu in my video on Islands that aren't actually islands!

he did

Would have to be a longer term one. I wouldn't see this process delivering legally recognizable results in anything less than 25 years.

Colonized oceans are inevitable so I don't think people need to sweat the destruction too much. Better think about how to make the structure more eco friendly than to delay them.

Yes, also seen by the links/sources he's used (in description)

It’s the backward world we live in 👎🏻. People would rather watch fake pranks etc

You have no idea where this would lead. If you don't try.

I wonder if you wold be willing to invest in a plot to build a hotel in the middle if the ocean?

The mining and stuff was only there to convince investors I'm pretty sure, lots of scientists and researchers do it, they think of something that could be helpful, but they need money to research it so they have to make it appealing to rich people. This is more of a problem with the way society supports science as a whole tbh.

I'm in the comments to make sure someone mentioned this book! I had a copy back about 20 years ago and enjoyed the ideas. It inspired some people to build the Living Universe Foundation, or LUF (which still has a website today. Years ago there was a discussion group and some land somewhere in Texas dedicated to the idea). A key idea in the book is that the purpose of building the island is as training for hostile environments where the residents will need to be completely responsible for their needs, such as food production and materials extraction. It's a fun idea, but I can't see such a difficult, expensive, and long-term project attracting enough people to make it reality. There are too many other options with similar payoffs that are easier to achieve.

I remember getting excited about the LUF and joined their email discussions back in the late 90's. They were calling this stuff SeaCrete and discussing using Ocean Thermal Electric Conversion (OTEC) to generate the power by pumping deep cold water to the surface and using the warmer surface water to run giant sterling engines or something. Interesting stuff!

@@pontifier me too! Did you ever try the OTEC game? It was basically a simulator where you had to try to keep a plant running within certain parameters.

I also looked through the comments to see if someone else mentioned this book, at first I thought for sure it was going to be about that. A while back I was looking into it again to see if anyone was trying to do anything with it, there's some OTEC down in the Bahamas by a company headquartered in Lancaster, PA, had a former Philadelphia mayor on the board. They did actually build it, but it seemed like they were having endless setbacks and troubles getting it to actually work. Think the company was actually called OTEC.

Reclaiming land is very, very expensive. The countries with the highest percentage of reclaimed land are Singapore, Gibraltar and Monaco. All are very rich places and the new land was sold for a fortune.

He envisioned this project on a very big scale. It wasn't just an artificial reef. He wanted to build entire cities on top of it. Your approach may be faster, but the costs will explode pretty fast as soon as we scale things up. Mass-producing arks, deploying them in shallow water and let them build reefs for 10-20 years seems pretty cheap and predictable. On the other hand, I'm not sure how developed his concepts actually are. I would guess that there are many unknowns that have not been thoroughly thought through.

I wondered the same thing

Possibly more shallow water in the north? The south has more deep seas and much less land.

@@Dave_Sisson or more agricultural fertilizer that leaks out in to the oceans?

Yes we do.

Shite lol my phone😂

Land belongs to whatever country has the military power to seize and hold it. That's why Britain still has the Falklands, and why China has de facto military control of the South China Sea even if it isn't recognised internationally, and routinely takes action to forcefully expel fishing vessels introducing in 'their' water. All the diplomatic niceties are just a formal recognition of the real rule: Might makes Right.

​@@vylbird8014first you need to explain why Argentina should own a piece of land situated a few hundred km from their borders, that is a land they never owned, and is populated by English speaking people! let me guess, because military junta that rule Argentina in the past believe that was easy, and they cannot lose? They were wrong, and so are you!

@@theOrionsarms I never said I supported it. I gave the reason. The UK has reasons to claim the islands. Argentina has reasons to claim the islands. Why are the islands owned by the UK? Because the UK defeated Argentina in a military conflict over them, and has the military superiority to ensure Argentina doesn't try again. That's all that matters. All else is worthless, because your moral indignation doesn't make a speck of difference when the other side is arguing with bullets.

@@vylbird8014 the moral reasoning that makes UK to hold that land was that ,they putted colonists on those islands when where was nobody there, and the descendants of those people that where English cytzens supposed to become the second class cytzens in Argentina, only because those islands were more closer from Argentina than England is(did it matter if is 500 miles or 5000?),why this is matter? Falkland was never part of Argentina,or populated by Spanish speaking people!As you said either is the power of who can't, that would be English,or if it' is a claim of a higher moral ground, should be the most justified ones, also the British like I said , so make your mind, either is the right of the powerful, and British win or of the ones that holds that land for the beginning, also the British, so Argentina have no excuse to invade that place in the first time.

@@theOrionsarms I don't think you get the point I'm making. You replied with a lot of good justifications for Britain to retain control of the islands. They are good justifications. But they are not the reason Britain controls the islands today. The real world is not an ideal world, where reason will win the day. It's a world where the only counterargument to violence is more violence. Argentina tried to take the islands by force. Britain defended them with more force. Britain won the war, so it has the islands. That's all there is to it. You can't present logical, rational debate in the face of international territorial disputes because you can't argue with a warship carrying a fuckton of missiles.