Do you think that it was right to sink the Belgrano?

Answer 1

No. It was retreating. It was a war crime. The men on board were conscripts, some little more than kids.

Answer 2

The Belgrano was NOT retreating, it was manouevering. Thats what warships do in times of war!!

Anyone who thinks that warships simply steam around in straight lines heading for their targets must have learned their history from a comic book.

The fact is that the Belgrano and her escorts were manouevering around one side of the islands, whilst the aircraft carrier group led by the "25th of May" was approaching from the North, to ctah the British task force in a pincer movement.

The Belgrano may have been an outdated ship but her large guns could still outrange any guns (not missiles) the Royal Navy had on their Type 42's and an old shell can just as easily sink a ship as a new missile.

We were at war and Argentine aircraft were killing British sailors daily.

The result of sinking the Belgrano is that the rest of the Argentine Navy ran straight for home and stayed there.

If the aircraft carrier had stayed out where she was the Royal Navy would not have had anywhere near enough warning of attacks by her aircraft and we may have lost our capital ships and the war itself.

As usual however loads of anti British and anti Thatcher comment instead of understanding the real question.

To the person who mentioned Kissenger......he had retired years before, it was Al Haig who was doing the shuttle diplomacy...and that was already finished.

To the person who said we should have jusyt given the islands up. What about all the people on them who wnated to stay British, and who had just been occupied by a brutal military dictatorship?

To everyone who says that the islands should belong to Argentina because they are close......The Falklands are 250 miles away from Argentina so if you apply that logic Birmingham should belong to France.

The Falkland islanders should be the ones to choose whether they belong to anyone or not and they choose to be British.

Anyhow modern Argentinians are actually Spanish invaders so maybe they should think about giving that country back to the South american native people before bothering us.

Answer 3

Well it was right for Thatcher, she was at an all time popularity low, and there was a Chilean based peace deal over the Falklands on the table, but Maggie needed a war to boost her ratings so she had the Belgrano sunk to make sure that no way would the Argies sue for peace.

It was a totally immoral and probably illegal act. The Belgrano was an old american battleship that had survived Pearl harbour, so it was ancient and no match for the modern Royal Navy ships that it was steaming away from anyhow.

The downside is, of course, that if she hadn't done this then the Chilean peace deal would almost certainly have left the Argies running the Falklands and our loss of national pride would have been enormous.

Answer 4

Well the only circumstances I care about is that the UK and Argentina were at war, and the Belgrano was an Argentinian war ship. Not even the Argentinian Navy consider the sinking of the Belgrano to be a war crime.

Answer 5

Yes because it sent an important message to the Argentinian military, which was that we are not messing about and threats will be dealt with. This action effectively neutralised their Navy and was justified as mitigation of the risk the Belgrano posed. The loss of life in war can never be justified in times of peace and should not be looked at emotionally after the event - just think of the atom dropped bombs on Japan or the loss of life in the II world war.

Answer 6

Anyone who says no is an idiot.
The captain of the Belgrano regards it as completely legitimate as his nation was at war. I think a bit of restraint was shown as the two destroyers with her could easily have been taken out as well.
Also anyone who thinks it is a good to allow a fascist regime to get away with acts of aggression is sadly deluded. The Argentinian regime at that time commited horrendous human rights abuses and some people think it was a good idea to allow them to annex the Falklands - probably the same type of people who thought appeasing Hitler was a good idea in the 30's.

Answer 7

Why are you bringing that up now, well yes they had already struck two of our ships and even though the `Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone and was retreating it coulkd still be considered a threat.
I know that they lost 280 seamen to the chilly South Atlantic but they were sent to war to reclaim the Malvinas they should know what to expect . they should have known that the military Junta of general Galtieri was s sham and toppled him. Like they did after. So yes

Answer 8

Yes it was a legitimate target!

The potential damage she could have inflicted on the British Task Force would have been immense.

God Bless the Silent Service.

And may all victims of the conflict Rest In Peace.

By the way if you want to talk war crimes ask about the thousands of missing Argentinian civilians under the Argentinian Military Junta!!

While the ship was sailing away from the Falklands when first spotted, within an hour she could quite as easily have put about and gone into battle to aid the Argentinian Occupation Forces on the islands.

The captain of the sub made the right choice, end of story!

For Bill. Ironic isnt it that the Belgrano was a Ww2 ex-US Navy ship, she was sank with a Mark-48 Ww2 vintage torpedo.

Answer 9

It was outside the exclusion zone but the very fact it had put to sea in time of war was a threat to British vessels within the zone and it was the correct decision to eliminate the threat before it showed its intentions.The people in command were not conscripts though in war I cant see how anyone can expect conscripts to singled out and given special treatment in war so why people say that is a reason not to sink a battleship I don't know?.

Answer 10

Of course. It was a major enemy naval unit that posed a potential threat to the UK task force. The arguments about the relative age of the ship and the submarine are irrelevant. That's like saying you can't shoot someone threatening you with a knife. War is war and I'm afraid that the role of the armed forces in war is to kill the enemy as necessary to prevent them from achieving their objectives.

Answer 11

There is no exclusion Zone for combatant vessels? What a crock! The Belgrano sallied forth and was manuevering near the designated combat area able to strike at will. The British fired with intent to damage and no one was more surprised that she went turtle and sank than the British. Calling this a war crime is a crock of shi.t. "Combatant Vessel" people!

Ret. USAF SNCO