Was Thatcher right to sink the Belgrano /his/?
>She is the only ship ever to have been sunk during military operations by a nuclear-powered submarine[1] and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II
Huh, I didn't know that.
So wait were "submarines" just a meme?
>>771797
No, their primary users just haven't gone to war.
>>771797
Submarines were extremely effective in the Pacific and Atlantic theaters of World War II. As far as you can get from a meme weapon
>>771797
I think like nuclear weapons they were more of a threat than a real weapon intended for use
>>771777
>Was Thatcher right to sink the Belgrano /his/?
Anyone who thinks that it wasn't justified is retarded. Argentina and Britain were at war, so any and all military targets were fair game, including Belgrano. The exclusion zone the Brits declared was a warning to neutral parties, not a guarantee that any fighting would be contained to just that are.
>>771777
Why wouldn't she be?
Argentinians talked shit and got hit.
Yes, Belgrano was an obsolete WW2 cruiser but her cannons would have made the landing much more difficult than it finally was. Even the argentinian captain said it was a fair act of war.
how is it even a controversy?
>>771777
[spoiler]Nice trips, but check these doubles[/spoiler]
>Sinking an enemy warship near a conflict zone during a war is wrong
Literally only British Lefties were buttruptured no one else, including the Argentines, have ever disputed the legality of the sinking
>>771797
They are simply outclassed by airforces. Considering all the engagements after WW2, I can't think of any other situation besides the Falklands war when a power didn't have aerial and maritime superiority over the target.
If the planes don't have to face enemy fighters, they are simply much more efficient at sinking ships.
>>771777
Of course. It was a powerful enemy ship and it's destruction meant that the Argentine fleet was no longer a serious threat to the British force regaining control over the islands.
It was just northern left wing people who as a rule despise Thatcher.
>>772123
Why does America spend so much to be on the bleeding edge if the enemies it fights are almost certainly going to be vastly technologically inferior?
>>771977
If you all think those dubs are good, check this 9
>>772917
Because you shouldn't build your military around the wars that you're actually fighting, but rather the worst (realistic) case scenario.
"Good enough" isn't what you want. You want overwhelming superiority to the point that everyone's afraid to cross you.
On the topic of this reply chain, the submarine force we have is primarily meant for strategic deterrent. You want SSBNs to roam around silently so that you can guarantee a retaliatory strike even if all land-based weapons are destroyed, and you want SSNs to keep track of the other guy's SSBNs so that they can't do the same to you if the shit hits the fan. Conventional warfare hasn't been the focus of the USN's subs since the Polaris entered service.
>>772934
baka tbqh family
Argie here
I felt like the germans losing the Bismarck or the bongs losing the Hood
>>773071
So legitimate target of war?
>>772917
Welfare for Lockmart.
>>773080
probably more of a
>It was "fair," but we're not going to be happy about losing a "capital" ship and several hundred men.
>>772282
Well I'm a southern left wing person and I hate Thatcher.
>>771777
Yes. It was a legitimate act of war. The Argentinian Navy even sees it that way. The only people that don't see it that way are Argentinian nationalists who are butthurt they lost and want to direct attention away from their failing economy.
>>772123
Subs aren't outclassed by air forces. They're barely even comparable when it comes to naval combat other than the fact they're both really good at sinking ships. Submarines however have the advantage of being able to hide on station for weeks at a time denying use of the sea to an opponent and requiring extensive effort to hunt and kill.
>>771955
Shit, I did not expect this boner
>>771952
the controversy was caused by the fact that at the time the Peruvian mediator was close to arranging terms for a peaceful Argentine evacuation of the islands and that the attack shut down the negotiations. No one is saying that the ship was an invalid target or anything like that.
>>773522
Another bigger reason is that the British had initially declared an exclusion zone around the islands. The Belgrano was outside of this exclusion zone and wasn't heading directly towards the islands when she was sunk. People who trumpet this however ignroe the fact that the British had expanded that exclusion zone and that the Captain of the Belgrano has admitted he was going to turn back towards the islands and had orders to find and attack the British fleet.
Were the Americans right in killing enemy soldiers in WW2 /his/?
>>774483
No
They should have either snuck past or tranquilized everyone between them and Hitler
>the Belgrano was essentially still in the WW2 configuration the US Navy had given her in
>was the last warship from the Pearl Harbor attack left in service
>veterans groups were looking to buy her and turn her into a memorial when the Argentinians retired her in the next few years because of her historical significance
>all went down to the depths because Argentina wanted to have their own island getaway
I'm not saying she wasn't a legitimate military target, but I am saying I wish the Brits had ignored the damn thing until it actually got close to the Falklands.
>>773108
this
Ya all niggas underestimate how much money US warmachine puts into flow
>>772123
Not exactly.
The problem with submarines nowadays is that they've NEVER had chance to hunt the commerce like they've did during WW2.
Of course modern airforces make submarines much lesser threat as they're killed as soon as they're spotted but that was the case during late WW2 just to little lesser extent.
Then again the reason why British submarines weren't really successful during Falkland war was that British had hot modern torpedoes they've bragged about since 60's but they were never really tested, so rather than risking torpedo scandal: British edition they've decided to load much lower-performanceWW2 surplus(but at least those torpedoes worked).
Both USN and RN still use tons of untested equipment as we speak so it's not like they've learned something.
>>772917
Military industrial complex and the belief that bleeding-edge technology will fix everything.
Majority of that airforce was made to fight USSR and USSR military was no joke for most of the time. The US was always one step ahead of them, so reducing spending was equal to risking having only "just as good" weapons when facing enemy with gigantic numerical superiority on the ground, not-that-far-behind in the air(especially as USAF doctrine regarding fighting that airforce - bombing airfields would never work) and were able to dominate the Baltic and sink some carrier task force once or twice if they performed the preceding operation well(it was huge threat especially when Red Navy had Kirovs already while USN didn't reactivate Iowas yet)
>>771797
This is wrong, a South Korean destroyer was sunk by an unknown submarine a few years ago.
