Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nuclear submarine should be sent to Falklands to show British anger at boat ban decision
The Daily Telegraph, UK ^ | 21 Dec 2011 | Andrew Hough

Posted on 12/21/2011 8:11:04 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki

Nuclear submarine should be sent to Falklands to show British anger at boat ban decision

A nuclear submarine should be sent to the Falkland Islands to illustrate Britain’s anger at a decision by South American countries to ban boats bearing the island's flag, the former head of the Royal Navy said.

Lord West, the former the former First Sea Lord, said Britain should also undertake military exercises in response to the “aggressive” decision by the Mercosur bloc to close ports to ships flying the “illegal” flag.

The Foreign Office also condemned the decision by the bloc, which includes Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, as tensions over the long-disputed territory erupted into the open on Wednesday.

Ministers warned Argentina that “no one should be in any doubt about the British Government’s commitment to support” the area, which involves a vast swathe of potentially mineral-rich South Atlantic waters.

Ambassadors throughout the region were ordered to raise the issue as a “matter of urgency” as anger mounted over the unjust decision to “intimidate the people of the Falkland Islands”.

The South Atlantic islands are a powerful Argentine national symbol and the government often reiterates its sovereignty claim over the South Atlantic archipelago since the brief, but bloody war, in 1982.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: argentina; falklands; royalnavy; ssn

1 posted on 12/21/2011 8:11:09 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I guess we will soon find out if the UK will fight for them.


2 posted on 12/21/2011 8:15:42 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Argie soreheads.
http://gawker.com/5705146/more-oil-found-off-falkland-islands
(Interesting comments.)


3 posted on 12/21/2011 8:17:27 PM PST by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Maggie Thatcher, you’re needed once again!


4 posted on 12/21/2011 8:21:18 PM PST by Old Sarge (RIP FReeper Skyraider (1930-2011) - You Are Missed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I think Britain has more important uses for their submarine fleet.

Let Carlos pitch a fit.


5 posted on 12/21/2011 8:26:38 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay

"You are gay LoL!"


6 posted on 12/21/2011 8:29:36 PM PST by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
The author is not very familiar with how subs work. They are the concealed weapon of international politics. The only way a hostile should find out if a sub is in the area is when it “detects by detonation”.
7 posted on 12/21/2011 8:39:04 PM PST by CrazyIvan (Obama's birth certificate was found stapled to Soros's receipt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Flagging Empire....


8 posted on 12/21/2011 8:41:04 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

I thought the Brits were so busy housing and feeding their Muslim immigrants that they didn’t have the money or time to worry about that old military stuff anymore.


9 posted on 12/21/2011 8:43:50 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife
"I think Britain has more important uses for their submarine fleet.

Maybe they can borrow one.
10 posted on 12/21/2011 8:49:08 PM PST by clearcarbon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan

You’re right. It is the job of the surface navy to show the flag. Sub captains never, ever want to be detected. Their idea of serving notice that they are in the area is when your sonar picks up an inbound torpedo. Other than that, you just never know.


11 posted on 12/21/2011 8:55:34 PM PST by ThunderSleeps (Stop obama now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Sent the sub! and send one to the Arabian sea as well. Just encase things heat up with Iran.


12 posted on 12/21/2011 9:09:18 PM PST by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

I hope they are ready to sink some Argie ships


13 posted on 12/21/2011 9:14:53 PM PST by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ThunderSleeps; CrazyIvan

The surface fleet of the RN is pretty stretched as it is. And to make a statement, you would practically need to send at least a couple of frigates/destroyers and supply vessels.

Maybe the demand to send a sub is to warn the Argentines of consequences of any aggression. A single Astute class sub has enough firepower to sink most of their surface navy and shoot off a few Tomahawks without them even knowing.


14 posted on 12/21/2011 9:19:43 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Isn’t Britain violating our Monroe Doctrine by holding the islands?


15 posted on 12/21/2011 9:26:52 PM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Wow, wouldn’t it be nice for GB to have an aircraft carrier?


16 posted on 12/21/2011 9:52:22 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Either Obama can beat any GOP candidate or no GOP candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Indeed

Britain should also undertake military exercises

With what ?

17 posted on 12/21/2011 10:07:01 PM PST by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
Isn’t Britain violating our Monroe Doctrine by holding the islands?

The simple reply to the conumdrum is that the Monroe Doctrine was never intended to be whatever the opposite of "retroactive" is (prospective?).

There is no independent clear assessment of the status of the Falklands, indeed, of the very existence of "Argentina" as an independent stable state in 1823.

The territory that ultimately became Argentina (and a few other current countries) was in a constant state of civil war or isurrections the entire first half of the 19th Century.
What finally became Argentina didn't even exist when the Monroe Doctrine was established.

18 posted on 12/21/2011 10:29:11 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961

Regardless of the national entity, isn’t the presence of the European power the violation? Latin America was gaining its independence from Spain in the first half of the 19th century; I don’t see how that impacts the doctrine.


19 posted on 12/21/2011 10:34:59 PM PST by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Britain was considered a silent partner in regards to the Monroe Doctrine. I doubt the US would have complained at all had Britain established a new colony in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. They certainly weren’t going to complain of a small group of islands 400 miles off the coast that had more or less been under British control for several hundred years.

The Monroe Doctrine was concerned with the establishment of new colonies after its passage.


20 posted on 12/21/2011 11:31:06 PM PST by VeniVidiVici ("Si, se gimme!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CrazyIvan
The author is not very familiar with how subs work. They are the concealed weapon of international politics. The only way a hostile should find out if a sub is in the area is when it “detects by detonation”.

I'm thinking this is why the old guy suggested a nuke sub. The Argentinians would think twice before sending ships into an area where there might be subs.

21 posted on 12/21/2011 11:32:37 PM PST by VeniVidiVici ("Si, se gimme!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Britain was considered a silent partner in regards to the Monroe Doctrine. I doubt the US would have complained at all had Britain established a new colony in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. They certainly weren’t going to complain of a small group of islands 400 miles off the coast that had more or less been under British control for several hundred years.

The Monroe Doctrine was concerned with the establishment of new colonies after its passage.

What is now Argentina freed itself of Spanish control beginning in 1810 and lasting several more years. Independently of Spain, a precursor to Argentina in 1820 and Argentina itself in 1832 exercised sovereignty over the Falklands. Britain took exclusive control over the islands, by force, from an Argentine garrison, in January 1833, a decade after the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine.

A literal reading of the Monroe Doctrine would indicate that the British action in 1833 was in violation of the Doctrine. What once was just, as you call them, "a small group of islands", now has substantial economic value, so the issue, in isolation, has relevance.

I agree, however, that the Doctrine was never intended to apply to what later became the Special Relationship. I doubt that the U.S. would want to articulate the unwritten Canning exception in today's international environment. I think that the U.S. would just avoid the topic.

22 posted on 12/22/2011 12:46:20 AM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-1376-argentina-and-the-united-states.aspx


23 posted on 12/22/2011 1:48:17 AM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Kennard

p.113 of above: Prior to January 1933, the U.S. had granted diplomatic recognition to Argentina, bringing the British military action of that date within the purview of the Monroe Doctrine. Argentina did not advance that argument at the time, to the surprise of the author.


24 posted on 12/22/2011 1:53:41 AM PST by Kennard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Who cares?.

It was/is a policy of the United States. A policy, not a law.


25 posted on 12/22/2011 5:09:54 AM PST by the scotsman (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson