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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
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 Praxeologue
[ 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 Praxeologue
[ 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 Praxeologue
[ 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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

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