Thatcher died

[Lt. Fred]

I also unsure about Belgrano, but I think you can draw a distinction between the Total War of WW2 and the Limited War against Argentina.

[kiwimac]

I hope God, any God, is nicer to her than she was to the poor, the powerless and the working class in GB.

[Art Vandelay]

I'm answering this with what little knowledge I have on the subject of the Belgrano, so I'm going by what my understanding of the situation is. If it's true that the Belgrano was merely zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone, had not fired any shots but had simply been trying to provoke a violent response by being where it was, and then turning around to retreat back to Argentina, then I would say it wouldn't be right to sink it just for that. So from what I can gather the situation with the Bismarck was different as the Bismarck exchanged fire with other ships during a battle.

How about the fact that it could well come back later and cause trouble later on, possibly even killing British military personnel, had it been allowed to retreat? What if it had managed to shell British soldiers on the island, or perhaps managed to shoot down British aircraft?

All of these rules of warfare may well give you the warm-n-fuzzies and whatnot, but the realities of war really doesn't abide by such nonsense. War is not nice, that's a simple fact. You can't compromise tactics for the sake of appeasing any bleeding hearts, even when dealing with a relatively incapable opponent like Argentina, because you're effectively risking the lives of your own military for the sake of sparing the enemy's.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I'm answering this with what little knowledge I have on the subject of the Belgrano, so I'm going by what my understanding of the situation is. If it's true that the Belgrano was merely zigzagging through the Maritime Exclusion Zone, had not fired any shots but had simply been trying to provoke a violent response by being where it was, and then turning around to retreat back to Argentina, then I would say it wouldn't be right to sink it just for that. So from what I can gather the situation with the Bismarck was different as the Bismarck exchanged fire with other ships during a battle.

How about the fact that it could well come back later and cause trouble later on, possibly even killing British military personnel, had it been allowed to retreat? What if it had managed to shell British soldiers on the island, or perhaps managed to shoot down British aircraft?

All of these rules of warfare may well give you the warm-n-fuzzies and whatnot, but the realities of war really doesn't abide by such nonsense. War is not nice, that's a simple fact. You can't compromise tactics for the sake of appeasing any bleeding hearts, even when dealing with a relatively incapable opponent like Argentina, because you're effectively risking the lives of your own military for the sake of sparing the enemy's.

That I can't agree with; sinking a ship that never attacked anyone just because it might come back later does not seem necessary to me, not enough to justify the loss of life. Unless there is something else that's much less speculative I cannot necessarily say the sinking of the Belgrano was justifiable.

[Art Vandelay]

That I can't agree with; sinking a ship that never attacked anyone just because it might come back later does not seem necessary to me, not enough to justify the loss of life. Unless there is something else that's much less speculative I cannot necessarily say the sinking of the Belgrano was justifiable.

Seriously? You don't believe an actual enemy warship could possibly be a threat until it actually attacks something? Do you need me to post the dictionary definition of "war" for you?

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

That I can't agree with; sinking a ship that never attacked anyone just because it might come back later does not seem necessary to me, not enough to justify the loss of life. Unless there is something else that's much less speculative I cannot necessarily say the sinking of the Belgrano was justifiable.

Seriously? You don't believe an actual enemy warship could possibly be a threat until it actually attacks something? Do you need me to post the dictionary definition of "war" for you?

I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages

Though I've gotta be honest with you, I don't think I feel as passionately about this particular topic as you seem to, so that may be why I don't quite feel like doing an all night back and forth. I'd just as soon be comfortable with saying I understand and respect your opinion on the subject, but I disagree.

[Art Vandelay]

I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages

That analogy is ridiculous. There was plenty of evidence that the Belgrano was a threat. Namely, that it was an Argentinean warship and Britain and Argentina were in a state of war. How is an armed and active enemy light cruiser not a threat? Do you think the Argentinians had it out because it looked pretty? This is just bleeding heart nonsense taken to the utmost extreme.

[Rabbit of Caerbannog]

I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages

That analogy is ridiculous. There was plenty of evidence that the Belgrano was a threat. Namely, that it was an Argentinean warship and Britain and Argentina were in a state of war. How is an armed and active enemy light cruiser not a threat? Do you think the Argentinians had it out because it looked pretty? This is just bleeding heart nonsense taken to the utmost extreme.

I think they had it out there to goad the UK into attacking, and that's exactly what happened. Call it whatever you want, if you don't show me the plentiful evidence of it being a threat then I have nothing to discuss.

[Art Vandelay]

I understand the definition of war, I just find the reasoning eerily similar to the reasons for, say, invading Iraq: you have a posturing enemy who may attack you in the future and so you decide to launch a preemptive strike on them. Absent any evidence that the ship posed a threat, I just have to disagree with you here. I mean, without stretching this thread to forty some odd pages

That analogy is ridiculous. There was plenty of evidence that the Belgrano was a threat. Namely, that it was an Argentinean warship and Britain and Argentina were in a state of war. How is an armed and active enemy light cruiser not a threat? Do you think the Argentinians had it out because it looked pretty? This is just bleeding heart nonsense taken to the utmost extreme.

I think they had it out there to goad the UK into attacking, and that's exactly what happened. Call it whatever you want, if you don't show me the plentiful evidence of it being a threat then I have nothing to discuss.

How about the Belgrano's armaments?

    15× 6"/47 cal (152 mm)
    8 × 5"/25 cal (127 mm) AA
    40 mm and 20 mm anti-aircraft guns
    2 British Sea Cat missile AA systems (added 1968)

While most of that is rather outdated, the Sea Cat missiles packed enough of a punch to bring down British aircraft, should they get the chance. Even a quick skim of the Wiki article shows that the Brits made rather heavy use of air power throughout the war. All in all, not sinking something like that when you get the chance is utterly ludicrous.

[Lt. Fred]

Here's an argument that could work. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's the best one I could make.

Belgrano was not a military target. The British 'limited war' against Argentina was largely land and air-based, and the Belgrano was so old and crappy (and sailing away) that it was never going to be effective in that war. Just as Britain limited any strike against the Argentinian mainland, even against military targets, the British ought to have limited its attacks against the Argentinian Navy to those ships that posed an immediate, direct threat to the British #occupation of the island. The Brits had two goals: beating the Argentinians, and limiting needless casualties generated by achieving the first, civilian or military. Destroying the Belgrano needlessly wasted human life without substantially improving the British condition on the islands sufficiently to justify that loss of life (it also won a bunch of votes at home).

I think that's wrong. Blowing away the Belgrano with a submarine put the fear of a watery grave into the remainder of the Argentine Navy. They, in fact, remained in port for the rest of the war. It would have been really nice if the British Submarine had done something about the surviving crew, though.

[dietcokewithlemon]

The Belgrano was an old, out of date ship filled with conscripts sailing away from the Falklands. It was OUTSIDE the exlusion zone set up by the UK government and moving directly away. Although we were at war, the ship was no threat to our forces. Our government had stated that it would only attack targets within the exclusion zone around the islands. Although technically it was a valid target in the sense that it was a military vehicle and therefore not a war crime, you could also argue we had the right to bomb the Argentine Parliament in Buenos Aires - but we didn't. In war you should always remember that conflicts end and the survivors have to make peace. Try not to salt the earth...

Thatcher ordered it sank simply to prove a point to the Argies. I think around 1/3 of all deaths in the entire war drowned when it went down. Hundreds of teenage boys drowning in their beds because our leader wanted to look tough. She gave the order. Not only that, but she lied for some time afterwards first claiming it was inside the zone then claiming it was outside but sailing towards, then claiming it was sailing away but in a threatening manner. If it was such a great thing to do why did she try to cover up the facts?

Interesting point if not already made so far - The sinking of the Belgrano is the only time in history that a nuclear powered submarine has engaged an enemy ship. Billions spent on the fucking things and the only time they were used was to fire two torpedos into a rust bucket full of boys. Makes you proud to be human.

[Lt. Fred]

  Interesting point if not already made so far - The sinking of the Belgrano is the only time in history that a nuclear powered submarine has engaged an enemy ship. Billions spent on the fucking things and the only time they were used was to fire two torpedos into a rust bucket full of boys. Makes you proud to be human.

Personally I'm glad that SSNBs haven't been used in a more active role.

[Canadian Mojo]

Here's an argument that could work. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's the best one I could make.

Belgrano was not a military target. The British 'limited war' against Argentina was largely land and air-based, and the Belgrano was so old and crappy (and sailing away) that it was never going to be effective in that war. Just as Britain limited any strike against the Argentinian mainland, even against military targets, the British ought to have limited its attacks against the Argentinian Navy to those ships that posed an immediate, direct threat to the British #occupation of the island. The Brits had two goals: beating the Argentinians, and limiting needless casualties generated by achieving the first, civilian or military. Destroying the Belgrano needlessly wasted human life without substantially improving the British condition on the islands sufficiently to justify that loss of life (it also won a bunch of votes at home).

I think that's wrong. Blowing away the Belgrano with a submarine put the fear of a watery grave into the remainder of the Argentine Navy. They, in fact, remained in port for the rest of the war. It would have been really nice if the British Submarine had done something about the surviving crew, though.

It's also wrong because the only way the British were maintaining their war effort was through a maritime supply line since they were thousands of miles from home and re-supply. The loss of any ship for the British could have proven catastrophic. The loss of just one container ship, the Atlantic Conveyor, destroyed almost all airborne troop transport which forced the British to advance on foot and seriously eroded their combat capabilities.

[kefkaownsall]

She also was in bed with Pinochet

[mellenORL]

Falklands was a needless war forced on UK. Thatcher was a nasty horrid bitch and a hypocrite. The Belgano was a legit target. In all wars, young people, many of them mere boys, are set up to kill each other by the egoistic old rich sods who rule the warring factions. The Human Comedy, at it's blackest.