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.
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.)
Or the MoD didn’t want to risk them finishing up at the bottom of the South Atlantic.
Interesting, please explain.
“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.”
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.
From your link
So whatever the United States chose to do, it was a losing option.
Actually, by the Monroe Doctrine, the United States should have helped Argentina.
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.
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.
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.
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.
President Kirchner: “apologise, or else we’ll cut off your supplies of corned beef!”
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.
Demand the repatriation of the “war brides”. Direct impact on England’s precious wool supply.
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.
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.
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:
Am I somehow enjoined from expressing opinion unless I am in contradiction?
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.
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.
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.