There are a few misconceptions about the Falklands Conflict, first one is it was a ‘conflict’ and not a war. Calling the Falklands a conflict was an expedient and, as short lived as it was, it was still a war, it’s not about the longevity it’s about the intent. My point is my countrymen died in a war, as they did in the Gulf and now do in Afganistan, all wars require sacrifice and therefore a willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for your country.
The second is that outside the exclusion zone any Argentine ship military or otherwise supporting the campaign would not be a target. If their Aircraft Carrier was 100 miles outside the exclusion zone it would have been sunk. If an ARA destroyer turned up off Ascenscion Island or decided to make a move on the Kiwi’s boat that took over from the Royal Navy’s pacific stations it would have been sunk by the Kiwi’s. If the ARA sailed up the Thames Estuary it would have been sunk.
The Belgrano was a legitimate target no matter where it was, and it was zig zagging at the time, it could’ve change course at any time and threatened the Royal Navy task force.
I was questioning your earlier statement that any Argentinian NAVAL vessel OUTSIDE the exclusion zone was still a legitimate target. You may well be correct; however, that is not my understanding of how the exclusion zone worked. Could you provide a source/link? Thanks