Nuclear submarine should be sent to Falklands to show British anger at boat ban decision

A nuclear submarine should be sent to the Falkland Islands to illustrate Britain’s anger at a decision by South American countries to ban boats bearing the island's flag, the former head of the Royal Navy said.

Lord West, the former the former First Sea Lord, said Britain should also undertake military exercises in response to the “aggressive” decision by the Mercosur bloc to close ports to ships flying the “illegal” flag.

The Foreign Office also condemned the decision by the bloc, which includes Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, as tensions over the long-disputed territory erupted into the open on Wednesday.

Ministers warned Argentina that “no one should be in any doubt about the British Government’s commitment to support” the area, which involves a vast swathe of potentially mineral-rich South Atlantic waters.

Ambassadors throughout the region were ordered to raise the issue as a “matter of urgency” as anger mounted over the unjust decision to “intimidate the people of the Falkland Islands”.

The South Atlantic islands are a powerful Argentine national symbol and the government often reiterates its sovereignty claim over the South Atlantic archipelago since the brief, but bloody war, in 1982.

The author is not very familiar with how subs work. They are the concealed weapon of international politics. The only way a hostile should find out if a sub is in the area is when it “detects by detonation”.

I'm thinking this is why the old guy suggested a nuke sub. The Argentinians would think twice before sending ships into an area where there might be subs.

Britain was considered a silent partner in regards to the Monroe Doctrine. I doubt the US would have complained at all had Britain established a new colony in violation of the Monroe Doctrine. They certainly weren’t going to complain of a small group of islands 400 miles off the coast that had more or less been under British control for several hundred years.
The Monroe Doctrine was concerned with the establishment of new colonies after its passage.

What is now Argentina freed itself of Spanish control beginning in 1810 and lasting several more years. Independently of Spain, a precursor to Argentina in 1820 and Argentina itself in 1832 exercised sovereignty over the Falklands. Britain took exclusive control over the islands, by force, from an Argentine garrison, in January 1833, a decade after the declaration of the Monroe Doctrine.

A literal reading of the Monroe Doctrine would indicate that the British action in 1833 was in violation of the Doctrine. What once was just, as you call them, "a small group of islands", now has substantial economic value, so the issue, in isolation, has relevance.

I agree, however, that the Doctrine was never intended to apply to what later became the Special Relationship. I doubt that the U.S. would want to articulate the unwritten Canning exception in today's international environment. I think that the U.S. would just avoid the topic.

p.113 of above: Prior to January 1933, the U.S. had granted diplomatic recognition to Argentina, bringing the British military action of that date within the purview of the Monroe Doctrine. Argentina did not advance that argument at the time, to the surprise of the author.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.