# The UK must apologize to Argentina for the Falklands? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 7, 2003, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526 "2003-12-07T07:04:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Lola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ed655f/32.png) [@Lola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lola)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/21 "2003-12-07T15:32:08Z")
Bear in mind that Maradona also scored the greatest goal of all time in that match. (I can’t do smilies) And I agree with **Ruadh** that Irish support for the Argentines over that grubby little war is embarrassing. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/22 "2003-12-07T15:42:44Z")
**rnaka** has hit the nail on the head: the nukes were standard issue. The Brits were actually acting “humane” by sending them home. I have mixed feelings about the war - I think more could have been done diplomatically, and I feel that the UK was pretty badly let down by its “closest ally” - but at the end of the day, I tend towards it being necessary. The Argentine request is utter, utter bollocks. Clearly attempting to whip up patriotism domestically, by undoing the healing work that has been going on for 20-odd years and over something many Argentinians are ashamed of. ( **ruadh** , a _very_ Republican friend of mine once said, in all seriousness, that he had rather Ireland were occupied by Hitler than the Brits. Sometimes hatred eclipses logic.) ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/23 "2003-12-07T15:48:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > **rnaka** has hit the nail on the head: the nukes were standard issue. The Brits were actually acting “humane” by sending them home. Or the MoD didn’t want to risk them finishing up at the bottom of the South Atlantic. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Long\_Road](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@The\_Long\_Road](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Long_Road)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/24 "2003-12-07T15:58:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\* > > I have mixed feelings about the war - I think more could have been done diplomatically, and I feel that the UK was pretty badly let down by its “closest ally” - but at the end of the day, I tend towards it being necessary. > > \*\* Interesting, please explain. ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/25 "2003-12-07T16:14:50Z")
“We apologize for having had nuclear weapons onboard our ships. This might have caused some people to think that you could have actually stood up to conventional weapons.” ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/26 "2003-12-07T16:17:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Long Road \* > \*\*Interesting, please explain. \*\* Which bit? That it was, in the end, justified? Or the US involvement? Reagan initially said the US would remain neutral on the issue. Haig’s shuttle diplomacy started only after protests from Thatcher. The peace plan offered by Haig was for _both_ sides to withdraw troops. US sanctions against Argentina only started just before the Task Force landed. I’m not suggesting that the US should have sent troops, but an immediate, Blair-esque jump to defense of its “closest” ally and fellow NATO member - as opposed to Argentina, which, though allied, never bore this moniker - didn’t happen. Getting support from the Reagan government was like pulling teeth. [An analysis](http://de.geocities.com/snarkonline/Falklands.html). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Long\_Road](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b5a626/32.png) [@The\_Long\_Road](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Long_Road)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/27 "2003-12-07T16:30:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jjimm \* > \*\* > Or the US involvement? Reagan initially said the US would remain neutral on the issue. Haig’s shuttle diplomacy started only after protests from Thatcher. The peace plan offered by Haig was for _both_ sides to withdraw troops. US sanctions against Argentina only started just before the Task Force landed. > > \*\* From your link > [@](#): > > But in any case, support to Britain damaged the U.S. relationship with Latin America, and of course more particularly the U.S.-Argentina relationship So whatever the United States chose to do, it was a losing option. Actually, by the [Monroe Doctrine](http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm), the United States should have helped Argentina. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/28 "2003-12-07T16:36:30Z")
But it’s precisely because of this dilemma that many Brits were surprised that the “special relationship” didn’t actually hold much water. Apparently Thatcher was livid, and it was her anger that prompted eventual support. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/29 "2003-12-07T17:33:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*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? \*\* Can you really be this stupid? This was during the cold war, remember? Ships and bombers carried nukes as a matter of course. Many American ships and subs continue to do the same, though I think we’ve stood down the bombers, though I may be wrong about that. Frankly I’m surprised they took them off at all. For Argentina to damand an apology is laughable. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/30 "2003-12-07T17:55:48Z")
Some folk seem to think that removing nuclear devices from their lauch platfroms is jusy a matter of just getting a crane to do a little bit of lifting. Once you have decided to relocate these weapons, you have to decide where you can put them, then you have to decide how they will reach that location, and then you have to work out the security arrangements. Moving nuclear materials and especially weaponised stuff is not like chucking it into a shopping trolley and wheeling it home to the garden shed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/31 "2003-12-07T17:57:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \* > \*\*Can you really be this stupid? This was during the cold war, remember? …For Argentina to damand an apology is laughable. \*\* It appears that I can. Gratuitous insult aside, I am quite aware of the hisoricity of the Cold War, having lived through the bulk of it. Are you trying to suggest there was some threat of Soviet intervention? Neither of the participants in this international hissy fit have anything to be proud of. ---
**Author:** ![Rodd\_Hill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3ab097/32.png) [@Rodd\_Hill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rodd_Hill)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/32 "2003-12-07T18:18:33Z")
President Kirchner: “apologise, or else we’ll cut off your supplies of corned beef!” ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/33 "2003-12-07T18:22:08Z")
There was _always_ a threat of Soviet intervention; if not in S. America then somewhere else. It seems perfectly reasonable that the UKs ships would be so armed, and as someone who lived through most of the cold war, I thought you would be aware of that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/34 "2003-12-07T18:22:09Z")
Demand the repatriation of the “war brides”. Direct impact on England’s precious wool supply. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Badger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/848f3c/32.png) [@Dead\_Badger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Badger)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/35 "2003-12-07T18:32:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **Are you trying to suggest there was some threat of Soviet intervention?** Oh come on, this is at the very least deliberately avoiding the point. No, the Soviets were not _involved_ in the Falklands, but they didn’t magically cease to exist while Argentina got their war on, now did they? The Falklands were not the UK’s only military consideration; not before, not during and not after the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![everton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ecb155/32.png) [@everton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/everton)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/36 "2003-12-07T18:37:20Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > Neither of the participants in this international hissy fit have anything to be proud of. Has anybody claimed anything to the contrary? It doesn’t alter the fact that the presence of nuclear weapons on those ships when they left port had nothing whatsoever to do with the Falklands War, and it’s extraordinary that you should need that to be explained to you repeatedly. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/37 "2003-12-07T18:38:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Long Road \* > \*\*Actually, by the [Monroe Doctrine](http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm), the United States should have helped Argentina. \*\* Historical note: the Monroe Doctrine was actually enforced by the British Royal Navy, which was the dominant naval power in the world at the time. The ability of the tiny US Navy to actually enforce the Monroe Doctrine was laughable, and US and British interests coincided. From the cite linked: > [@](#): > > Great Britain was torn between monarchical principle and a desire for new markets; South America as a whole constituted, at the time, a much larger market for English goods than the United States. When Russia and France proposed that England join in helping Spain regain her New World colonies, Great Britain vetoed the idea. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/38 "2003-12-07T19:43:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by everton \* > **Has anybody claimed anything to the contrary?** Am I somehow enjoined from expressing opinion unless I am in contradiction? > [@](#): > > \*\*It doesn’t alter the fact that the presence of nuclear weapons on those ships when they left port had nothing whatsoever to do with the Falklands War, and it’s extraordinary that you should need that to be explained to you repeatedly. \*\* Nothing whatsoever? Bit of a stretch, don’t you think? After all, the ships were headed to the Falklands, were they not? Unless, of course, they were off on a good will tour of Bermuda, and were redirected due to the emergency. The presence of nuclear weapons increases risk. In this case, needlessly. Clearly, removal of such while in port is preferred over any kind of removal at sea. I actually thought that was rather a small point, one that did not call for much argument, since it was so entirely obvious. So, no, I don’t need it explained repeatedly. However, if it gives you some joy, by all means, please do. It would be churlish of me to deny you this little crumb of satisfaction. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/41988e/32.png) [@El\_Cid\_Viscoso](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Cid_Viscoso)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/39 "2003-12-07T20:19:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > > Demand the repatriation of the “war brides.” Direct impact on England’s precious wool supply. Positively one of your best. I appear to also be among the minority; I have a very clear memory of the situation, as reported in the news. The nukes were a threat, pure and simple. ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2003, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526/40 "2003-12-07T20:41:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Long Road \*Actually, by the [Monroe Doctrine](http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/50.htm), the United States should have helped Argentina. \*\* Hmm, I thought the Monroe Doctrine prohibited NEW colonization. It did not apply to existing colonies, and I believe the Falkland Islands were a British possession at the time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-uk-must-apologize-to-argentina-for-the-falklands/217526.md?page=3)