Irish policy on the Falklands war

Judgement Day

cruasder777 wrote: »

And there was me thinking the UKs defence budget was the third highest on the planet and the Royal Navy the worlds most modern.

Well it is according to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

$59.6 billion in 2011 - not bad for such a tin-pot country.

cruasder777

Judgement Day wrote: »

Well it is according to Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

$59.6 billion in 2011 - not bad for such a tin-pot country.

Argentina is 49, the Republic 63.

I doubt Argentina has the capability to even attempt an invasion.

Judgement Day

cruasder777 wrote: »

Argentina is 49, the Republic 63.

I doubt Argentina has the capability to even attempt an invasion.

Argentina is a democracy these days, thanks to Maggie Thatcher, and so an invasion is far less likely. Anyway it wouldn't be very sporting as Britain needs time to complete its two new aircraft carriers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzLmY9SFDUY

losthorizon

Interesting Piece here on why the Argentinians left one of the British Troopships alone. If they had bombed her things could have turned out differently

http://www.wlrfm.com/wlrfm-podcasts/on-this-day-podcasts/145317-2012-01-06-12-38-08.html

http://www.themysteryworld.com/2012/04/30-years-since-falklands-war-41-pics.html

jonniebgood1

cruasder777 wrote: »

Originally Posted by jonniebgood1 View Post
Well with the 'empire' gone the need for the best Navy in the world was not as pressing as it once had been. The economic catastrophe for Britain that was WWII is often overlooked also in this context. So Britain post 1960's has no oversea empire (comparative to 1900 say) to protect and no money for a Navy she barely needs.

And there was me thinking the UKs defence budget was the third highest on the planet and the Royal Navy the worlds most modern.

I mentioned context and you are ignoring this.

To be clear the context to which I clearly referred is Britain in the early 20th century.

Refer to spending on defenseapprox 100 years ago in 1910:


And contrast with present:


My understanding is that it is commonly accepted that the reduction in military strength is linked to reduction in empire and also to WWII economic reasons with the end of the cold war being a more recent addition. This is the point I was making.

Britain's defense outlays as a percentage of GDP declined after the Cold War. Estimated defense outlays in 2008 (the last year for which official data was available in 2010) amounted to 2.2% of GDP, half what the UK spent during its last severe economic crisis, in the late 1970s. The last time the UK spent so little on defense was in the 1930s, before the belated arms buildup against Germany. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/uk-budget.htm

cruasder777

Every developed nations military spending in % terms has gone down, the average nation now spends 2 %, 100 years ago as your chart shows it was nearer 20%, its not just applicable to the UK.

The last ecomomic crisis was during the cold war.

Things are very different now, there is no major threat apart from terrorism and unstable dictatorships around the world. The UKs armed forces forces in the cold war inc reserves were 750,000 strong, that cant be justified in todays world.

Hence the Royal navy is going from being a force geared up to hunting Soviet subs in the north Atlantic to an expiditionary force with helicopter carriers to put troops on shore quickly in a rapid deployment role etc.

Technology also means forces are smaller nowadays, mass tank battles WW2 style are a thing of the past.

Todays infantry soldier costs 28k to train and thousands to equip. Some anti tank missiles fired at buildings in Agfghanistan by infantrymen cost £ 60,000 a go.

Pilots cost 1.5 million plus to train, in WW2 Spitfire pilots had two weeks training then took to the air, its a very different world today.

Hence forces are smaller but have alot more fire power.

jonniebgood1

cruasder777 wrote: »

Every developed nations military spending in % terms has gone down, the average nation now spends 2 %, 100 years ago as your chart shows it was nearer 20%, its not just applicable to the UK.

What about the dominant player- the US?

cruasder777 wrote: »

Hence the Royal navy is going from being a force geared up to hunting Soviet subs in the north Atlantic to an expiditionary force with helicopter carriers to put troops on shore quickly in a rapid deployment role etc.

Granted, but...
In 1910 it was the strongest Navy in the world, albeit locked in a battle of dreadnought construction with Germany. Nowadays it is very much distant in strength to the US, a comparison of strength of both would be interesting.

cruasder777

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What about the dominant player- the US?



Granted, but...
In 1910 it was the strongest Navy in the world, albeit locked in a battle of dreadnought construction with Germany. Nowadays it is very much distant in strength to the US, a comparison of strength of both would be interesting.

The US is the exception to the rule, but even they are now in decline in recent yrs in terms of military spending.

China is the new major player in terms of increased military spending.

fryup

even the wolfe tones took advantage of the situation, this reached the Top 20 in the irish charts i'm embarrassed to say:cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lowCuD8OYE

cruasder777

fryup wrote: »

even the wolfe tones took advantage of the situation, this reached the Top 20 in the irish charts i'm embarrassed to say:cool:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lowCuD8OYE

They must have been gutted about the peace process in NI, they made a good living out of the conflict.

Notice they left out the near total destruction of the natives who inhabited "Argentina".


In Argentina the “Day of the Race†is still celebrated every 12th of October. It was on this day when, over 500 years ago in 1492, Cristobel Colon landed on the shores of the Americas for the first time and proclaimed to bring race and civilization to the ‘New World’. This day signified the end of race and civilization for the continent’s indigenous inhabitants. In just 150 years they were nearly exterminated; from around 70 million when Colon arrived to barely 3 ½ million. (13

http://www.zcommunications.org/argentinas-forgotten-people-by-ann-scholl

....The calms of colonialism aimed at the Falkland islanders are a bit rich.

thecommietommy

Judgement Day wrote: »

Argentina is a democracy these days, thanks to Maggie Thatcher, and so an invasion is far less likely. Anyway it wouldn't be very sporting as Britain needs time to complete its two new aircraft carriers.

I know the Brits are famous for their conceit but this is taking the biscuit

I would have thought that Argentina been a democracy these days has more to do with civil protests, international human rights groups etc than Thatcher. Sinking the Belgrano really done a lot for Argentina now didn't it :mad:

Cardinal Richelieu

cruasder777 wrote: »

They must have been gutted about the peace process in NI, they made a good living out of the conflict.

Notice they left out the near total destruction of the natives who inhabited "Argentina".


In Argentina the “Day of the Race†is still celebrated every 12th of October. It was on this day when, over 500 years ago in 1492, Cristobel Colon landed on the shores of the Americas for the first time and proclaimed to bring race and civilization to the ‘New World’. This day signified the end of race and civilization for the continent’s indigenous inhabitants. In just 150 years they were nearly exterminated; from around 70 million when Colon arrived to barely 3 ½ million. (13

http://www.zcommunications.org/argentinas-forgotten-people-by-ann-scholl

....The calms of colonialism aimed at the Falkland islanders are a bit rich.

No mention of what effect old world diseases had on the native south american population figures in that article.

Also I never knew Sylvester Stallone was a Billionaire, sure the IRS would be interested in that fact. When you see poorly researched statements like that you got to question the validity of the rest of the article.

The article also mentions

The British offered 1 pound sterling for every Indian’s head given in.

Is this correct or fabrication?

cruasder777

Not sure, I dont dispute the Brits have done bad things in history(as well as good), just like every major nation.

But Argentina calling the Falkland islanders colonists is a bit rich, especially as the treated the natives there badly and wiped out many indiginous people there (their land was used for cattle ranches). There is one particular tribe who were genocided in the 19th century, (trying to remember their name).

slowburner

The increasing momentum and jingoism of the Falklands war, was simply to boost the Iron Lady's electoral ratings. That was patently obvious to every dog on the street in Ireland.
Many neutrals were agog at how far, and the way, she was prepared to go.
There was also the issue of an ongoing feud between Admiral Henry Leach and secretary of state John Nott over cuts to the navy. Leach was obviously determined to prove the value of his force.

Asked by Thatcher if he thought a task force to recapture the islands was feasible, he said he could sail one within 48 hours. Asked what his response would be, were he the Argentinian general, he said: "I would return to port immediately." It was a reckless and self-serving remark.
Leach's gung-ho approach appealed to Thatcher's decisive style. More to the point, it was a straw at which she could grab in total darkness. Cabinet on the morning of 2 April heard that Rex Hunt, the Falklands governor, had surrendered and the British marines had been expelledfrom the islands.

From this excellent summary of the conflict.

The attempts at mediation by general Haig were seen as half hearted - everyone knew that Maggie couldn't back down and that this was an opportunity to revive Brittania (rules the waves). Even Michael Foot hopped onto the jingoistic bandwagon.
My reaction, and that of most of the people I knew, of the war/conflict was one of fascination.
At first, there was clear sympathy for the inhabitants of an Atlantic island struggling against a foreign power.
As the war progressed, there was a view that the Argentinian army didn't really want to be there. Sympathy for the Argentinians rose after the sinking of the Belgrano.
By and large, Irish attitudes were neutral - we were just as shocked by the Belgrano as we were by the devastation of the Excocet missile.

I can't remember the name of the ghoulish press secretary who gave nightly updates, but they were compelling viewing.

thecommietommy

slowburner wrote: »

The increasing momentum and jingoism of the Falklands war, was simply to boost the Iron Lady's electoral ratings. That was patently obvious to every dog on the street in Ireland.
Many neutrals were agog at how far, and the way, she was prepared to go.
There was also the issue of an ongoing feud between Admiral Henry Leach and secretary of state John Nott over cuts to the navy. Leach was obviously determined to prove the value of his force.

From this excellent summary of the conflict.

The attempts at mediation by general Haig were seen as half hearted - everyone knew that Maggie couldn't back down and that this was an opportunity to revive Brittania (rules the waves). Even Michael Foot hopped onto the jingoistic bandwagon.
My reaction, and that of most of the people I knew, of the war/conflict was one of fascination.
At first, there was clear sympathy for the inhabitants of an Atlantic island struggling against a foreign power.
As the war progressed, there was a view that the Argentinian army didn't really want to be there. Sympathy for the Argentinians rose after the sinking of the Belgrano.
By and large, Irish attitudes were neutral - we were just as shocked by the Belgrano as we were by the devastation of the Excocet missile.

I can't remember the name of the ghoulish press secretary who gave nightly updates, but they were compelling viewing.

Totally agree about the momentum and jingoism and boosting Thatcher's electoral ratings. The Argentine junta were no better invading the islands to deflect attention from the economy. Probably the only thing most people outside of Britain will remember it for ( if they can remember anything at all about it ) will be the absoulutely pointless murder of hundreds of young Argentinian men on the Belgrano.

dubhthach

thecommietommy wrote: »

Probably the only thing most people outside of Britain will remember it for ( if they can remember anything at all about it ) will be the absoulutely pointless murder of hundreds of young Argentinian men on the Belgrano.

Belgrano was an warship operating in wartime. The sinking of it was fully within the remit of the "laws of war" the Argentine government (Dept of Defense) itself recognized this in 1994. The killing of British sailors via the sinking of HMS Sheffield, SS Atlantic Conveyor and the damage done to HMS Glamorgan by Argentine Exocet missiles was also fully legal acts of war during wartime.

Cardinal Richelieu

Does anyone have any info on the cooperation between the Argentine and UK Hospital ships outside the war zone?

OS119

Cardinal Richelieu wrote: »

Does anyone have any info on the cooperation between the Argentine and UK Hospital ships outside the war zone?

theres a book called 'Razors Edge' by an ex-spook called Hugo Bicheno - its pretty good, and makes uncomfortable reading for both sides - that mentions it, about a paragraphs worth towards the end. very roughly they set aside a grid square well to the north of the FI to put the hospital ships in and do the personell transfers, though lots just went straight to Montevideo and were swapped there.

jonniebgood1

dubhthach wrote: »

Belgrano was an warship operating in wartime.

But was it 'wartime' ?
Britain did not declare war on Argentina before attacking the Belgrano- I am open to correction on this but I think that they had declared a military exclusion zone around the Falklands. The Belgrano was outside this exclusion zone and sailing away from the zone (i.e. it was complying with the British request).
Its just a technicality and I think it is the reason that it is called the Falklands conflict by some historians and commentators.

dubhthach wrote: »

The sinking of it was fully within the remit of the "laws of war" the Argentine government (Dept of Defense) itself recognized this in 1994.

A court case was brought to the European court of human rights alleging that it was a war crime. The case was not considered as it was to long after the conflict.

Source- http://en.mercopress.com/2000/07/19/european-human-rights-court-dismisses-belgrano-case

Relatives of the dead have claimed that the action was designed to scuttle the possibility of peace talks and to enhance Baroness Thatcher's popularity at home. The Belgrano relatives have tried for the past decade to have Lady Thatcher extradited for a war-crimes trial in Argentina. Yesterday's action was brought by Luisa Diamantina Romero de Ibanez and Roberto Guillermo Rojas, who claimed that the attack on the ship had violated their sons' right to life under Article Two of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The couple's lawyers, Jorge Antonio Olivera and Jorge Appiana, said in their application that Britain violated the rules of engagement because the cruiser never entered the exclusion zone. They maintain that it was on course for Isla de los Estados and could not have been deemed to be operating in the war theatre. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/belgrano-families-lose-court-claim-for-compensation-706699.html

The suggestion is repeated:

City of Buenos Aires Ombudswoman Alicia Pierini, international law professor María Teresa Moya Domínguez and Deputy Federico Storani coincided that the sinking of the former USS Phoenix on 2 May 1982 by the Royal Navy nuclear submarine HMS Conqueror was a war crime and that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher should be prosecuted for her responsibility in ordering the sinking of the Argentine Navy vessel.

Resorting heavily on legal considerations ranging from the fact that the Belgrano was outside the Total Exclusion Zone set up by Britain two hundred miles around the islands, to the fact that it was sailing away from the islands at the time of the sinking, to some previously unheard grounds, for example that Conqueror "did not stop to pick up survivors or inform the International Red Cross of the sinking," the panelists were unanimous in supporting the view that it had been a war crime.
.....
The Families Commission, joint organizers of the seminar have long supported the view that the sinking was a war crime, a view clearly shared by the Commission's coordinator of this afternoon's presentation who consistently referred to the debate as being about "the war crime of the sinking of the Belgrano."

Advocates of this view argue that the Argentine cruiser was outside the 200 mile Exclusion Zone when it was sunk and that its sinking violates wartime conventions set down in The Hague in 1907 claiming that the sole purpose was to frustrate peace negotiations being carried out by then Peruvian President Fernando Belaunde Terry.
http://en.mercopress.com/2005/08/11/sinking-of-belgrano-as-a-war-crime-advocates-present-case

tricky D

The invasion was a de facto declaration of war. The British setting up of a War Cabinet confirms their status of being at war.

The exclusion zone only applied to neutral vessels. The absurd ECHR action rightly never had any chance.

snafuk35

Manach wrote: »

Is there be a definite history of the Falklands conflict that people would recommend?

Max Hastings co-authored the book 'The Battle of The Falklands' at it is pretty definitive.

jonniebgood1

tricky D wrote: »

The exclusion zone only applied to neutral vessels. The absurd ECHR action rightly never had any chance.

What is your source for it only applying to "neutral" vessels. I don't see your point...

The total exclusion zone statement warned military ships approaching the zone, hence it was relevant that the Belgrano was sailing in the opposite direction.

Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response.

Source- http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article17.html

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

But was it 'wartime' ?
Britain did not declare war on Argentina before attacking the Belgrano- I am open to correction on this but I think that they had declared a military exclusion zone around the Falklands. The Belgrano was outside this exclusion zone and sailing away from the zone (i.e. it was complying with the British request).
Its just a technicality and I think it is the reason that it is called the Falklands conflict by some historians and commentators.


A court case was brought to the European court of human rights alleging that it was a war crime. The case was not considered as it was to long after the conflict.

Source- http://en.mercopress.com/2000/07/19/european-human-rights-court-dismisses-belgrano-case



The suggestion is repeated:

The sinking of the Belgrano gave the Argentinians leadership a kick in the pants and let them know the British were not playing games. It ensured the Argentine Navy kept their most valuable ship - the aircraft carrier ARA Veinticinco de Mayo - out of the warzone. Her A-4Q Skyhawks flew from airbases on land which meant they had less time to loiter over the islands and attack British aircraft, vessels and ground troops on the Falklands. This was the key to the British victory. If the Argentinians had greater freedom to operate then the British carriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible or perhaps a troop ship like the QE2 could have been sunk which would have forced the rest of the fleet to turn back to Britain.

War isn't a game. It's win or lose and you don't win by fighting fair.

OS119

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

But was it 'wartime' ?
Britain did not declare war on Argentina before attacking the Belgrano- I am open to correction on this but I think that they had declared a military exclusion zone around the Falklands. The Belgrano was outside this exclusion zone and sailing away from the zone (i.e. it was complying with the British request)....

the problem is that the 'total exclusion zone', the 200 mile zone that Belgrano was outside, was not the only 'zone' in operation - the ROE for the TEZ was 'any Argentine ship will be attacked, and any other ship judged to be assisting the Argentines may be attacked', but the ROE for other zone, the whole of the South Atlantic, was that any Argentine vessel judged to be a threat to British Forces, whether in the 200 TEZ or not, may also be attacked. the RoE for the 'South Atlantic Area of Operations' came into effect on the 23rd April, and was communicated to the Argentines via the Swiss government.

you will note that neither the Captain of Belgrano, nor his CO, Rear Admiral Allara - have ever suggested that the attack on the ARA Belgrano was anything other than an entirely legal act of war, indeed in Middlebrooks 'Fight for the Malvinas', he is quoted as saying "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano".

so, as far as the Argentine Navy, and Argentine government is concerned, ARA General Belgrano and her escorts were warships operating in a war zone and liable to be attacked.

tricky D

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is your source for it only applying to "neutral" vessels. I don't see your point...

It's been well covered in this and many other threads, and many other resources including the Laws of War. Note that the argentine military brass and the official position of the Argentine Navy, including the Belgrano's captain had no issue with the action. The argument that you can't sink a vessel of a country who declared war and invaded your territory is frankly absurd.

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

What is your source for it only applying to "neutral" vessels. I don't see your point...

The total exclusion zone statement warned military ships approaching the zone, hence it was relevant that the Belgrano was sailing in the opposite direction.
Source- http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article17.html

When you are at war it doesn't matter if an enemy vessel is at the other side of the world - you sink it.

If an enemy soldier is off duty at home watching TV with a beer in his hand or if he is in helmet, body armour, belt kit and carrying a rifle on a battlefield - he is fair game.
The only rule in war is to kill enough of the enemy to convince the leaders it is not worth continuing.
Sinking the Belgrano was the wallop in the face the Argentinians were not expecting.

If I was in the Argentine leadership I would have tried to recruit Argentines living in England to blow up the Underground or bomb a hotel or something.

cruasder777

snafuk35 wrote: »

When you are at war it doesn't matter if an enemy vessel is at the other side of the world - you sink it.

If an enemy soldier is off duty at home watching TV with a beer in his hand or if he is in helmet, body armour, belt kit and carrying a rifle on a battlefield - he is fair game.
The only rule in war is to kill enough of the enemy to convince the leaders it is not worth continuing.
Sinking the Belgrano was the wallop in the face the Argentinians were not expecting.

If I was in the Argentine leadership I would have tried to recruit Argentines living in England to blow up the Underground or bomb a hotel or something.

They would have potentially found themselves on trial as war criminals. Argentina would have become a blacklisted country like Libya.

jonniebgood1

snafuk35 wrote: »

The sinking of the Belgrano gave the Argentinians leadership a kick in the pants and let them know the British were not playing games.
........
War isn't a game. It's win or lose and you don't win by fighting fair.

I agree about fighting fair but a case can be made and has been made by many invoking the terms of the Hague convention, 1907, which Britain signed.

OS119 wrote: »

the problem is that the 'total exclusion zone', the 200 mile zone that Belgrano was outside, was not the only 'zone' in operation - the ROE for the TEZ was 'any Argentine ship will be attacked, and any other ship judged to be assisting the Argentines may be attacked', but the ROE for other zone, the whole of the South Atlantic, was that any Argentine vessel judged to be a threat to British Forces, whether in the 200 TEZ or not, may also be attacked. the RoE for the 'South Atlantic Area of Operations' came into effect on the 23rd April, and was communicated to the Argentines via the Swiss government.

both the TEZ and the MEZ (maritime exclusion zone) cover the same area. As the TEZ was declared at a later date it would have been applicable at the date of the sinking and as I posted previously the Belgrano was sailing away from the declared zone. This allows for an argument to be made that the sinking of the Belgrano was contrary to the UK's invoking of article 51 of the UN charter, i.e. it was not self defense.

tricky D wrote: »

It's been well covered in this and many other threads, and many other resources including the Laws of War. Note that the argentine military brass and the official position of the Argentine Navy, including the Belgrano's captain had no issue with the action. The argument that you can't sink a vessel of a country who declared war and invaded your territory is frankly absurd.

I asked you for a source for your statement. Saying that "It's been well covered" is not a source.
Do you have a source to back up your initial comment?

jonniebgood1

snafuk35 wrote: »

When you are at war it doesn't matter if an enemy vessel is at the other side of the world - you sink it.

If an enemy soldier is off duty at home watching TV with a beer in his hand or if he is in helmet, body armour, belt kit and carrying a rifle on a battlefield - he is fair game.
The only rule in war is to kill enough of the enemy to convince the leaders it is not worth continuing.
Sinking the Belgrano was the wallop in the face the Argentinians were not expecting.

If I was in the Argentine leadership I would have tried to recruit Argentines living in England to blow up the Underground or bomb a hotel or something.

Your point is that bad things happen in war and I agree with this. It is also true that many engagements are honourable.
In looking at an incident in a conflict it is fair to try and identify which is the case.

dubhthach

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 51 doesn't apply in this case. It specifically applies to an attack on a member state. Someone which occurred when the Argentinans invaded the Falklands. As a result the security council passed Resolution 502

UN Resolutions

Security Council Resolution 502

Question concerning the situation in the region of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

3 April 1982

The Security Council,

Recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council at the 2345th meeting of the Security Council on 1 April 1982 calling on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to refrain from the use or threat of force in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

Deeply disturbed at reports of an invasion on 2 April 1982 by armed forces of Argentina,

Determining that there exists a breach of the peace in the region of the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas),

1. Demands an immediate cessation of hostilities;

2. Demands an immediate withdrawal of all Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas);

3. Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Regarding the Belgrano, British Signals Intelligence intercepted a message from Argentian naval hq to the Belgrano ordering it into the exclusion zone. It thus wasn't heading back to base. This was declassified in 2011 (30 years after the fact)

Or to Quote Thatcher at the time (exchange on BBC)

One day, all of the facts, in about 30 years time, will be published.

Either way article 51 is specifically about attack that leads to war. If the Belgrano had been sunk before the Argentinan invasion then the British would have been in breach of article 51. Instead by invading the Falklands the Argentinians were in breach of the article.

snafuk35

cruasder777 wrote: »

They would have potentially found themselves on trial as war criminals. Argentina would have become a blacklisted country like Libya.

Not if they won and the British withdrew. The British would have to take it and like it. The British won and the Argentinians have to take it and like it. If the Argies had won the British undoubtedly would have trained, funded and supported anti-regime elements in Argentinia who at that time were using terrorist tactics against the junta government.
The UN is stacked to rafters with war criminals who cast judgement on other war criminals.

jonniebgood1

dubhthach wrote: »

Article 51 doesn't apply in this case. It specifically applies to an attack on a member state. Someone which occurred when the Argentinans invaded the Falklands. As a result the security council passed Resolution 502

In their statement establishing the Total exclusion zone the last line reads "These measures are without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in exercise of its right of self defence, under article 51 of the UN charter".

Britain had claimed sovereign rights over the Falklands thus saw an attack on them as an attack on her own territory. It is a judgement call on whether the ship was any danger. I would be interested to see if the recently declassified intercepted signal helps on that? I have not read this declassified message.

Fratton Fred

thecommietommy wrote: »

Totally agree about the momentum and jingoism and boosting Thatcher's electoral ratings. The Argentine junta were no better invading the islands to deflect attention from the economy. Probably the only thing most people outside of Britain will remember it for ( if they can remember anything at all about it ) will be the absoulutely pointless murder of hundreds of young Argentinian men on the Belgrano.

The only people guilty of needlessly wasting lives were the Junta.

As I asked earlier in this thread, what else was Thatcher supposed to do?

tricky D

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I asked you for a source for your statement. Saying that "It's been well covered" is not a source.
Do you have a source to back up your initial comment?

The Argentine military position, the quote from the Captain are repeated in many articles, many of which have already been cited in the other thread in the military forum, Wikipedia [5 citations] and more. I'm not going to dig up more citations for you.

jonniebgood1

tricky D wrote: »

The Argentine military position, the quote from the Captain are repeated in many articles, many of which have already been cited in the other thread in the military forum, Wikipedia [5 citations] and more. I'm not going to dig up more citations for you.

I'm not trying to be awkward but if you cant be bothered backing up the opinion you stated then why make the statement in the first place. What you are effectively asking me to do in the quoted post above is to search for a source that backs up your opinion. That is not really how this forum works
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055234973
Information on types of sources here- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384651

jonniebgood1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The only people guilty of needlessly wasting lives were the Junta.

As I asked earlier in this thread, what else was Thatcher supposed to do?

Well one option was considering the Peruvian peace plan. Surely considering a plan for peace was a viable and attractive option?

Peru peace plan

(1) An immediate ceasefire, concurrent with:-
(2) Mutual withdrawal and non-reintroduction of forces, according to a schedule to be established
by the Contact Group;
(3) The immediate introduction of a Contact Group composed of Brazil, Peru, The Federal Republic
of Germany and the United States into the Falkland Islands, on a temporary basis pending
agreement on a definitive settlement. The Contact Group will assume responsibility for (A)
Verification of the withdrawal; (B) Ensuring that no actions are taken in the Islands, by the local
administration, which would contravene this interim agreement; and (C) Ensuring that all other
provisions of the agreement are respected
(4) Britain and Argentina acknowledge the existence of differing and conflicting views regarding
the status of the Falkland Islands;
(5) The two Governments acknowledge that the aspirations and interests of the Islanders will be
included in the definitive settlement of the status of the Islands;
(6) The Contact Group will have responsibility for ensuring that the two Governments reach a
definitive agreement prior to 30 April 1983.

Source- http://www.rna-10-area.co.uk/files/peru.pdf

tricky D

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

I'm not trying to be awkward but if you cant be bothered backing up the opinion you stated then why make the statement in the first place. What you are effectively asking me to do in the quoted post above is to search for a source that backs up your opinion. That is not really how this forum works
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055234973
Information on types of sources here- http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056384651

Not awkward, more trite. You could easily go to the Wiki page and check out the citations I referred to. I'll get them for you:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/841663.stm
http://www.operationcorporate.com/p1_battles_belgrano.php
Martin Middlebrook, The Fight for the "Malvinas", the Argentine Forces in the Falklands War

the others have moved or are embedded in media, but a quick and simple search reveals more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080490/Belgrano-Britain-WAS-right-sink-ship-attacked-Task-Force.html

2 primary and 2 secondary sources should more than suffice.

jonniebgood1

tricky D wrote: »

Not awkward, more trite. You could easily go to the Wiki page and check out the citations I referred to. I'll get them for you:

It is normal for forum users to back up their opinion/ views, particularly when requested. I have checked your sources.

tricky D wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/841663.stm
http://www.operationcorporate.com/p1_battles_belgrano.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2080490/Belgrano-Britain-WAS-right-sink-ship-attacked-Task-Force.html

Nowhere in the linked pieces is your initial comment substantiated

Your initial comment which I queried was:

tricky D wrote: »

The exclusion zone only applied to neutral vessels.

To which I asked
"What is your source for it only applying to "neutral" vessels. I don't see your point..."

The reason I asked was simply because I did not see what point you were making. The TEZ statement stated "Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response." Its just a query, I thought maybe you mistated your point?

snafuk35

Can we finally settle this for those who think the Belgrano was not a threat?



Do you see those big things on the front of the ship? What are they?

They are guns! The Belgrano was a warship! The sailors on the ship were trained to kill! Argentina invaded sovereign British territory. That was an act of war. What that means is the British had to right to sink Argentiniands' warships anywhere they damn pleased.

Now could you just accept that?

jonniebgood1

snafuk35 wrote: »

Can we finally settle this for those who think the Belgrano was not a threat?

Do you see those big things on the front of the ship? What are they?

They are guns! The Belgrano was a warship! The sailors on the ship were trained to killl! Argentina invaded sovereign British territory. That was an act of war. What that means is the British had to right to sink Argentinians warships anywhere they damn pleased.

Now could you just accept that?

If only life were that simple.

My neighbour has a gun.
I have no intention to issue him with a warning or to eliminate him as a threat.

Seriously though- if the 2 options were
1./ Consider a plan for peace that avoids conflict and may give a positive outcome but could endure criticism at home
2./ Attack ship to begin war/ conflict that will gain popular support at home.

I think that there was a choice.

tac foley

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If only life were that simple.

My neighbour has a gun.
I have no intention to issue him with a warning or to eliminate him as a threat.

Presumably your neighbour has not invaded your house and killed members of your family.

Perhaps if he had your opinion might differ somewhat.

tac

jonniebgood1

tac foley wrote: »

Presumably your neighbour has not invaded your house and killed members of your family.

Perhaps if he had your opinion might differ somewhat.

tac

Fair comment, my point was that it is not as simple as described- maybe my analogy was poor! The dispute would be who owned the house in the first place.

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If only life were that simple.

My neighbour has a gun.
I have no intention to issue him with a warning or to eliminate him as a threat.

Seriously though- if the 2 options were
1./ Consider a plan for peace that avoids conflict and may give a positive outcome but could endure criticism at home
2./ Attack ship to begin war/ conflict that will gain popular support at home.

I think that there was a choice.

Rubbish.
The Argentines invaded the Falkland Islands.
From day one the British were at war with them until such time as they forced to withdraw.
The Argentines has the upper hand - they had troops on the island, they were trying to establish an air base and they had a carrier to provide air cover and air superiority and the Belgrano was part of the fleet.
The sinking of the Belgrano unbalanced the Argentine junta, forced them to withdraw their aircraft carrier and to depend on land based aircraft which could not loiter for long over the archipeglo to engage the British fleet.
The British could then establish air superiority, land their forces virtually unopposed, cut off the Argentine garrison and retake the islands.
The Peruvian peace plan was just a smoke screen.
The British had to act and act quickly to frustrate the Argentinian plan to prevent the British task force from reaching the islands.
The British had no choice.
If the Belgrano was sailing in the Pacific it was still a legitimate target.
If it was tied up at a port in Argentina it was still a legitimate target.

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

If only life were that simple.

It is that simple.
Big boys games big boys rules.
You invade the sovereign territory of another country you cannot boohoo when you get a kick in the nuts.

My neighbour has a gun.
I have no intention to issue him with a warning or to eliminate him as a threat.

If he comes over to my house with that gun and holds members of my family hostage then I can be sure talking is over.

Seriously though- if the 2 options were
1./ Consider a plan for peace that avoids conflict and may give a positive outcome but could endure criticism at home

Talk peace when your territory is occupied and the enemy is building up his forces? You must be joking?

2./ Attack ship to begin war/ conflict that will gain popular support at home.

The war had already begun when the Argies invaded. They fired the opening shots.

I think that there was a choice.

What other options was there except to get the Falklands back by force? Were the Argies going to just say: "Oh I'm very sorry old boy. Here's your islands back. We jumped the gun. Won't do it again. Friends again.' ?

jonniebgood1

snafuk35 wrote: »

The Peruvian peace plan was just a smoke screen.

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Peruvian peace plan was not genuine. I ask this with an open mind.

snafuk35 wrote: »

The British had to act and act quickly to frustrate the Argentinian plan to prevent the British task force from reaching the islands.
The British had no choice.

Of course they had a choice. It is not realistic to say that they had no choice and the very fact that the action is debated shows that there was indeed a choice. This is equivalent to saying that there is never a choice in conflict which is rarely the case.

snafuk35 wrote: »

If the Belgrano was sailing in the Pacific it was still a legitimate target.
If it was tied up at a port in Argentina it was still a legitimate target.

Well what was the point of the TEZ then if everywhere was a legitimate target.

snafuk35

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Peruvian peace plan was not genuine. I ask this with an open mind.

If the British accepted the peace plan there would be nothing to stop the Argies from building up their forces in the mean time. The Argies would have their airbase built on the Falklands and the British would have had a much harder time taking the islands back. The Argies would have said half way through the talks once their position was strengthened militarily : 'Stick your peace plan up your backsides. We are keeping the islands.'

War is a game of bluff and double bluff.

Of course they had a choice. It is not realistic to say that they had no choice and the very fact that the action is debated shows that there was indeed a choice. This is equivalent to saying that there is never a choice in conflict which is rarely the case.

Once the Argies had taken the islands the only option remaining to the British if they wanted their sovereignty returned was to remove the Argentinian presence. The mere fact that Argies invaded the islands demonstrated they would use force to stop the British from retaking them.

The British were vulnerable - if they lost a carrier to Argie air power or a few more supply ships or a few more destroyers or if a troop ship was sunk they would have to give up and turn back and the window to retake the islands would be gone.

That is why they had to force the Argies to withdraw their fleet to port - the sinking of the Belgrano demonstrated the vulnerbility of their carrier. This meant that Argie jets had to be land based with seriously dimished their ability to prevent the British fleet from retaking the islands.

Well what was the point of the TEZ then if everywhere was a legitimate target.

It was an attempt to demonstrate to the Argentines that they meant business before they had forces in the area and as PR talk tough morale booster at home.

cruasder777

Intresting fact about the Belgrano,

She is the only ship ever to have been sunk in anger by a nuclear-powered submarine[1] and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II, the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri by the Pakistani Hangor during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War.

slowburner

Was there a rumour that the Belgrano was fired at by mistake?
Obviously, it would have been political suicide to admit that such an action was a mistake.

tricky D

jonniebgood1 wrote: »

It is normal for forum users to back up their opinion/ views, particularly when requested. I have checked your sources.

Nowhere in the linked pieces is your initial comment substantiated

Your initial comment which I queried was:

To which I asked
"What is your source for it only applying to "neutral" vessels. I don't see your point..."

The reason I asked was simply because I did not see what point you were making. The TEZ statement stated "Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response." Its just a query, I thought maybe you mistated your point?

You've got your references, the logic and conclusions are obvious. It's more than clear enough from them. The notion that an enemy ship can't be sunk anywhere during wartime is bizarre.

tac foley

Dear Mr johniebgood1 - I'm betting that surfacing and advising the Argentine Captain of the Belgrano to go away and not be such a silly person would not have had the same effect as blowing the almighty sh!te out his ship without a by-your-leave. That, Sir, is called submarine warfare.

Losing your major capital ship from under you has a resonance that goes all the way back to Buenos Aires, and of course, the Argentinians had no such compunction about doing the same to the British wherever they found them, a point that seem to have eluded you totally.

tac