Sinking the Belgrano: Militarily Correct Decision
- Thread starter Hollis
- Start date
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
The point is not that it was becoming immediately more dangerous, it was that the ability to destroy it was about to be lost. At some point in the future it would then be possible to return to the area and use those massive guns.articul8 said:
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Bob_the_lost said:
There were 2 options
1) NOT to sink it - with every possibility that the Junta (now under understanding their error in thinking Britain would not want a full military engagement) would accept the Peruvian peace settlement, and paving the way for and end to military hostilities, in which case hundreds of unnecessary deaths would have been averted. OK, this entails the small risk that Galtieri would have suicidally refused the settlement terms, making the boat a potential threat for a short period at some unspecified future juncture
OR
2) Sink it - knowing full well this would scupper a peace deal, lead to further avoidable casualties on both sides, but with the politically happy result that Thatcher would look like a great unswerving war leader in the Jingoist tabloids.
The 'military logic' cannot be wrenched out of the political circumstances - the sinking followed a temporary cessation of hostilities which could easily have culinated in an agreement to end the war.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Are you disagreeing with me or just taking a chance to restate the same thing you've said twice already? 
Oh and you missed a bit:
2) Sink it - knowing full well this would scupper a possible peace deal, lead to Argentinian casualties, possibly reduce/prevent British casualties, but with the politically happy result that Thatcher would look like a great unswerving war leader in the Jingoist tabloids.
Your point is that it was a political move. It's certainly got a political context to it, then again the entire falklands war was about Politics, Clausewitz would be proud. However to pretend that there was no military justification or reason for it is little more than lying to yourself. Those are the points i've taken issue with.
Oh and you missed a bit:
2) Sink it - knowing full well this would scupper a possible peace deal, lead to Argentinian casualties, possibly reduce/prevent British casualties, but with the politically happy result that Thatcher would look like a great unswerving war leader in the Jingoist tabloids.
Your point is that it was a political move. It's certainly got a political context to it, then again the entire falklands war was about Politics, Clausewitz would be proud. However to pretend that there was no military justification or reason for it is little more than lying to yourself. Those are the points i've taken issue with.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
OK to clariy (hopefully!) My earlier post was open to the (mis)interpretation that I was saying it is always and inevitably wrong to attack retreating forces. i can see how you could infer this into what I wrote, but it is not my position.
I have no problems in accepting that you can point to a general military logic for the decision which might - in the abstract - sound persuasive, but i think that when understood in the light of the concrete political circumstances that actually governed the decision, the excuses offered by way of a justification don't actually hold.
in this case a de facto temporary ceasfire on the part of the Argentinians (recognised as such by neutral third parties, and with a reasonable expectation that it would be reciprocated) was in operation. This means that, in my view, there is a strong military case that, under normal rules of engagement, the forces should not at that point been regarded as active combatants. Obviously there is always the danger that such ceasefires can break down and those forces can become active once again. But if you base your strategy on the probability that this will occur, and therefore launch a pre-emptive attack - you are deilberately sabotaging the chance of a peaceful resolution.
You might've thought that doctrines of pre-emption might not seem as appealing in view of the way they were used to justify the whole Iraq debacle!
I have no problems in accepting that you can point to a general military logic for the decision which might - in the abstract - sound persuasive, but i think that when understood in the light of the concrete political circumstances that actually governed the decision, the excuses offered by way of a justification don't actually hold.
in this case a de facto temporary ceasfire on the part of the Argentinians (recognised as such by neutral third parties, and with a reasonable expectation that it would be reciprocated) was in operation. This means that, in my view, there is a strong military case that, under normal rules of engagement, the forces should not at that point been regarded as active combatants. Obviously there is always the danger that such ceasefires can break down and those forces can become active once again. But if you base your strategy on the probability that this will occur, and therefore launch a pre-emptive attack - you are deilberately sabotaging the chance of a peaceful resolution.
You might've thought that doctrines of pre-emption might not seem as appealing in view of the way they were used to justify the whole Iraq debacle!
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Turn around and sink the UK fleet flagship = correct decision.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
But why wouldn't Galtieri have gone for a face and Junta-saving peace deal, rather than end up with nothing?
Sinking the ship prolonged the war, created not only more unnecessary Argentinian casualties, but also led to the deaths of more British, all over some islands we had no right to in the first fucking place.
untethered
For industry & decency
articul8 said:
I think we're getting to the heart of your objections now.
It's kind of difficult to argue that sinking the Belgrano wasn't a militarily correct decision. Old it might have been but it was still sufficient to pose a threat to the British task force, or at least to tie down units of the fleet in keeping an eye on it. But that's within the narrow confines of military tactics: the real questions are over whether the war could have been averted in the first place, or a negotiated settlement arrived at once it had begun.
The only basis on deciding who has the 'right' to any territory is the wishes of the population, as long as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British they have every right to do so, once they decide to become independent or join Argentina they should be allowed to do so.
untethered
For industry & decency
articul8 said:
True. We should respect the fact that 99.7% of Iraqi voters chose Saddam as their president.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
articul8 said:
I meant HMS Conqueror should have turned its guns on the British Flag-ship.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
Belushi said:
1) Argentina wasn't fascist. The military junta was reactionary and dictatorial but that isn't necessarily the same thing.
2) Their territorial claim was if anything historically more justified than ours. OK, I agree, the wishes of the population now living there are important - the invasion was not itself justified. But nor was the denial of the Argentinian claim to the Malvinas. There ought to have been diplomatic joint sovereignty proposals with guaranteed safeguards to the rights of residents.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm resonding directly to your question. Who gives a shit whether this particular action was militarily the right thing to do? Discussing the ins and outs of strategy in a war that should never have been fought strikes me as somehow missing the point.Hollis said:Who gives a shit?
And then you proceed to give your own interpretation of events..
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I disagree. The islands are the other side of the world and it costs something like £50,000 per Islander per year to keep the Falklands British. Countries shouldn't rule places thousands of miles away, as a matter of principle and practicality.Belushi said:
Long-term the UK should be looking to get rid of all its overseas possessions. The couple of thousand people who will be affected should of course be granted compensation, but they have no 'right' to £50,000 worth of military spending per year in perpetuity. I would like to see the UK demilitarising drastically. This will never happen while the likes of the Falklands need 'defending'.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
In other words your anti imperialist ideals are more important than the will/rights/freedom of those who live there. I know i've told you what sort of foul taste that viewpoint leaves in my mouth, but it's worth restating (sort of like TCP, yeuch!). Do you support the suppression of human rights across the board or do you merely pick and chose?littlebabyjesus said:
Also your argument has other flaws, if there was a massive oil field discovered nearby, generating massive wealth for the UK would that make the island part worthy to be of the UK again? When did we suddenly start charging for nationality? Bringing the question of money into the picture was a very bad tactic imo.
Oh come on. Now you're being silly.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Money is a concern to all policy makers. If it cost half the country's entire annual income to keep the Falklands British, would you still support the venture? There has to be a tipping point.Bob_the_lost said:In other words your anti imperialist ideals are more important than the will/rights/freedom of those who live there. I know i've told you what sort of foul taste that viewpoint leaves in my mouth, but it's worth restating (sort of like TCP, yeuch!). Do you support the suppression of human rights across the board or do you merely pick and chose?
Also your argument has other flaws, if there was a massive oil field discovered nearby, generating massive wealth for the UK would that make the island part worthy to be of the UK again? When did we suddenly start charging for nationality? Bringing the question of money into the picture was a very bad tactic imo.
Oh come on. Now you're being silly.
As to discovering oil nearby, you should read my post again - I want to see the UK military drastically cut, and one requirement for this to happen is that it should give up its claims on places over the other side of the globe, oil or no oil. There are wider concerns here than enabling a rich country like the UK to make itself even richer by annexing resources to itself on the back of its military might. Concerns such as working towards a decent world.
You may be able to think of high-minded reasons for Britain's foreign policy to be how it is, but you are naive in the extreme if you think the real reasons for UK actions are anything to do with right and wrong. An offer of reasonable compensation and help in relocation would be a hell of a lot more than the people of, for instance, Diego Garcia were given. When a country decides to build a dam, people are forced to leave their homes. When a military power such as the UK decides that it wishes to build a military base, the inhabitants of the area concerned are turfed out. How is this any different?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I would remind you that the Falkland Islanders were not British citizens before the war. They were very quickly made citizens as it was an embarassment to the government for their shoddy treatment of Overseas dependencies to be put under the spotlight.Bob_the_lost said:
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
I know, your fantasies on the topic have been covered fully in other threads. They are however of little use in the real world. If, however, you wish to include them in the discussion it's amusing to note that the policies you advocate are the ones that lead to the Falklands war and contributed to the death toll therein. (see white paper and FO activities to divest the UK of the Falklands).
If you open the door to practicality then you must face the opposite side of the coin, benifts to the costs. At what point do the benifits to a country occupying territory override the rights of the inhabitants? The mirror image of the policy you propose. Where's that tipping point. There are wider concerns than your desire to slash the military, concerns like equality for example.
I'd much prefer a world that pays at least some attention to human rights than one that openly discards the notion as soon as it comes up against something you dislike. But finally i'd say that this thread isn't about the Falkland islands now, or even then, it's about the rights and wrongs of sinking the Belgrano. Clearly topics mutate over time but is this the place to rehash these arguements yet again?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Bob_the_lost said:
Sorry, but I reject the high-minded talk of human rights here. Where are the 'human rights' of citizens of overseas territories who have no right to live or work in the UK, yet are effectively ruled by the UK? Where were the human rights of the people of Diego Garcia? If you think UK foreign policy is concerned with human rights, you are very naive.
We do not have the 'human right' to live where we want at all costs and subsuming all other considerations. That is a misuse of the concept.
untethered
For industry & decency
Bob_the_lost said:
Indeed. I often wonder how much it would cost to re-colonise Singapore and whether it'd be worth it.
littlebabyjesus said:
If the UK divested itself of its overseas possessions and its military then it would cease any aspirations of being a world player. It would be likely that overseas investment, as well as overseas interest would lapse with very negative consequences for the UK economy...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, you're right. If a country isn't militarily a 'world player', it is condemned to poverty. Poor old Swedes, Swiss, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Japanese...jæd said:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
jæd said:
Yes. It would be seriously beneficial to all concerned.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It would please me greatly if Britain's international financial institutions all went bust, even if it lead to some belt tightening on my part. The City of London is a facilitator of wrong-doing all round the world.
Similar threads
