The UK must apologize to Argentina for the Falklands?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3297805.stm

Argentina invade land claimed by other nation. Other nation sends ships to repel invasion. 20 years later, it emerges that when these ships left docks they were in a bit of a hurry, so they left with nukes. These nukes were though taken off these ships before they arrived at the Falklands.

Argentina then demands apology?

Now perhaps I’m being naive, but frankly I didn’t realise that when you invade another country you then get a say in which weapons they have on board when they send the fleet out. If anything, I’d have thought you should be grateful said country took any efforts at all to remove them during transit.

As such, I find that I must reply to President Kirchner’s demand that “The UK must ask our forgiveness,” with a sincere and heartfelt fuck you.

… or else what?

The Argentine government will collapse again?

Still, gotta ask myself…

Why would the British imagine they might need nukes? In case the Argies invade France and seize Calais?

And if they had no good reason to believe such weapons would be neccesary…

Why were they issued?

The nukes were already on board just in case the Argentinians decided to invade the USA.

We were ready boys to repel the dastardly swines from your fair shores by nuking Washington, New York, Philly, etc when the invaders had kicked your asses and you were getting worried.

for the Brits are coming,the Brits are coming

[to the tune of “Over there”]

The weapons weren’t issued - they were already deployed on the boats prior to the invasion. When the ships were sent out the decision was made to remove the weapons.

This is really fucking stupid. The Argentine president should apologize for making moronic demands of a foreign nation and everyone should forget this.

Until it’s time to bash sports teams, that is.

So…they left port for combat. After this point in time, someobody said “I say, chaps, there are nukes aboard, what?”.

And then…helicopters, perhaps…were deployed to physically remove these weapons. Or something. So, when they arrived to bravely face the Argentine juggernaut they did not have nuclear arms that could have been launched at a tactical/command level? (i.e. Colonel Kong in a pissy mood)

But no one noticed they were aboard? Until they wheyed anchor?

Ah come on luci, I gave you a fairly short cite to read:

"In its statement on Friday, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) said a decision not to use the weapons was made before the ships left port.

But they were kept on board because to remove them would take 36 hours, delaying the Royal Navy deployment to the south Atlantic."

Ah, I see. So, up to 37 hours before the ships left port, the nuclear capacity was still desireable? Why? What conceivable threat could Argentina offer?

It says they habitually carried nukes at that time, so I don’t know that they were necessarily intended to be used. Whichever way you cut it, someone did something stupid, but I don’t think Mr S. A. Agressor has much of a say in an apology.

You’re thinking backwards in time, elucidator. The decision was made, and it was also decided that a 36 hour delay at that point was unacceptable, hence the compromise of removing them en route. If someone invades your land, you want to get out and defend it, not piss around worrying what some pillock (Kirchner, not you ;)) might think in 20 years. They decided not to use them, end of story. At the absolute most they simply forgot to consider them before the failure of diplomacy, which is perhaps unsurprising.

Personally I can’t even get too exercised at Kirchner for this - it’s most likely just a bit of silly populist tub-thumping to try and smooth the passage of the fairly painful and serious economic reforms he has to enact.

I though Argentina had real and current problems to worry about.

I believe the UK warships concerned carried nuclear weapons as part of strategic doctrine at that time, not in regards to Argentina but in regards to Soviet warships, also so armed.

The UK set the ships underway immediately to not lose time, very reasonable one would think.

The Argentines are being childish and fools.

But it’s so much easier to whine about something that happened 20 years ago than to address current and real problems.

Distraction is everything, ya know?

Of course, that’s exactly why Argentina invaded the islands to begin with. To distract from the problems they were experiencing at the time (chiefly the mobilisation of a population sick of living under a homicidal military dictatorship). I find it endlessly embarrassing that so many in the Irish republican movement still take the Argies’ side in this conflict, just because it was against the Brits.

(Mind you I don’t think there were any good guys on either side in this one.)

Nor I (“two bald men fighting over a comb” and all that). But this thread highlights the reasons why Argentina is up shit creek – their politicians have no clue what to do about their real problems and assume their public is naïve enough not to complain as long as they have something else to distract them.

The Falklands/Malvinas imbroglio has been the favourite for decades, but if it wasn’t that it would be some playground spat with Brazil, Chile or Uruguay.

It’s really sad.

I have no site atm but I kind of vaguely remember from a South American History class I took, that the UK was looking to hand over the Falklands anyway. The very few people living there were not particularly interested in being given over to a homicidal military dictatorship, for some odd reason, and were objecting. The Argantinian government had some serious economic and political problems at the time and figured the Brits wouldn’t really mind much if they just took an hunk of land they had been trying to get rid of anyway, and it would be a good distraction and play well at home if they were seen to outface the Brits. They misjudged their hand.

But it’s a successful formula–look what it’s done for Dubya.

The UK government had certainly for some years been given off an ambivalent attitude towards the Islands. Some decisions that were taken, such as downgrading the defence force in place in the South Atlantic were seen as giving the impression to the Argentinian government that there was no will to actually fight for the Islands. IIRC, there was a big inquiry after the war as to why the threat of invasion had not been forseen and headed off.

As to the original subject, when they apologise for Diego Marradona’s goal in 1986, we’ll consider apologising for the nukes :stuck_out_tongue: