USS Iwo Jima to the Royal Navy

[Marcantilan]

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/news/reagan-readied-us-warship-82-falklands-war-0

Weinberger offered firstly USS Einsenhower. But, surely i t looks like an LPH with "contractors" was the best move if one of the British carriers went to bottom.

Interesting stuff is coming after this 30 years.

Regards!

[Oberon]

Very interesting indeed, and with the ARA San Luis on the loose it was an ongoing concern that we would lose a flat-top. The political fallout from such a loan would have been interesting...I wonder if another nation would have 'loaned' vessels to Argentina in a tit-for-tat style retaliation?
Who would have been politically aligned to do such a thing though? The Soviets operated via Libya...but something like a cruiser would have been hard to exchange without the Royal Navy interdicting it mid-route and either impounding it or sinking it.

[Herr-Berbunch]

That surprises me, I thought the US had a strict non-intervention policy within the Americas. :o

On the one hand it's nice to know the offer was there, on the other - the loss of a carrier would've been catastrophic even with a replacement on standby!

I doubt the RN would've sunk a third-party vessel en-route to the operational area, and even in that area I think they'd have to think long and hard about the potential fall-out.

[Marcantilan]

I wonder if another nation would have 'loaned' vessels to Argentina in a tit-for-tat style retaliation?

According to Adm Anaya (the head of the Navy - one of the "nice" people of the military regime) the Soviets offered, on April, a Kresta class cruiser.

The offer was rejected, in part because is not an easy toy to operate and also because the Soviets wanted more than money to pay for it (bases in Tierra del Fuego, a change of the political attitude toward communism and so on)

Also, Castro offered one of his F-boats.

Regards!

[Gargamel]

That surprises me, I thought the US had a strict non-intervention policy within the Americas. :o

.
O.o


Grenada, panama, etc.......

[geetrue]

Where is she now?

After a terrible boiler accident that cost ten crew members their lives in 1990. She was sold for scrap.

Iwo Jima was decommissioned on 14 July 1993, and she was sold for scrap on 18 December 1995.

India didn't even want her due to a built in vibration after 15 kts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iwo_Jima_(LPH-2

[Oberon]

According to Adm Anaya (the head of the Navy - one of the "nice" people of the military regime) the Soviets offered, on April, a Kresta class cruiser.

The offer was rejected, in part because is not an easy toy to operate and also because the Soviets wanted more than money to pay for it (bases in Tierra del Fuego, a change of the political attitude toward communism and so on)

Also, Castro offered one of his F-boats.

Regards!

*whistles*

Wow...didn't know that...a Kresta really would have been a fly in the ointment.

[Herr-Berbunch]

That surprises me, I thought the US had a strict non-intervention policy within the Americas. :o

Grenada, panama, etc.......


Sorry, getting muddled with my US treaties, I know there is a relevant one out there - the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (which has since, I believe, fallen(or -ing?) by the wayside) - this, along the the contrary NATO agreement meant the US mostly had it's hands tied, but routed for Britain slightly more as Argentina was the initial aggressor.

I think. :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

Sorry, getting muddled with my US treaties, I know there is a relevant one out there - the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (which has since, I believe, fallen(or -ing?) by the wayside) - this, along the the contrary NATO agreement meant the US mostly had it's hands tied, but routed for Britain slightly more as Argentina was the initial aggressor.

I think. :hmmm:

Yes the Falklands War is what nullified the Rio Treaty. IIRC Argentina asked the US for assistance under that treaty but the US refused.

Because of which when the US asked for assistance following 9/11 all but a few small countries honored the treaty.

[Herr-Berbunch]

:woot: Woo, got one right!!!

[Wreford-Brown]

If you look at history, the UK only had a claim on West Falkland (not East Falkland, where the majority of the infrastructure, the capital and primary port are) and abandoned their claim on the Falkland Islands at least once leaving Spanish colonists on the islands.

Argentina went to the UN in the 1960s and 70s asking for a decision on the Falkland Islands and received a UN mandate which reminded all nations of their post-WW2 agreement to stop colonisation anywhere on the globe, but with a caveat that it was to be up to the people to decide how they wished to govern themselves.

I hope the UK does the right thing next year and invites a load of UN and Argentinean observers for the referendum that is being held. Many people from many nations have lost their lives over the last couple of centuries over the Falkland Islands. Regardless of which way the vote goes, let's hope the international community, particularly the UK and Argentina, respect the result.

[Herr_Pete]

If you look at history, the UK only had a claim on West Falkland (not East Falkland, where the majority of the infrastructure, the capital and primary port are) and abandoned their claim on the Falkland Islands at least once leaving Spanish colonists on the islands.

Argentina went to the UN in the 1960s and 70s asking for a decision on the Falkland Islands and received a UN mandate which reminded all nations of their post-WW2 agreement to stop colonisation anywhere on the globe, but with a caveat that it was to be up to the people to decide how they wished to govern themselves.

I hope the UK does the right thing next year and invites a load of UN and Argentinean observers for the referendum that is being held. Many people from many nations have lost their lives over the last couple of centuries over the Falkland Islands. Regardless of which way the vote goes, let's hope the international community, particularly the UK and Argentina, respect the result.
The UK will most certainly honour the outcome. Argentina however...

[Marcantilan]

Well, the Argentine position is that the islanders have no rights to self determination, because were no settlers, but an imposed population (because the Argentine governor and the previous population were evicted on 1833) This is really a complex matter with rivers of ink over it.

The end of the problem is not at hand, but we (the international community) need at least another century to deal with it.

In the other hand, I think is not a problem about who owns the land (well, it belongs to the falklanders), but which country has rights over it.

Regards!

[Jimbuna]

Peru sent attack aircraft to Argentina as well as airborne munitions and also offered the services of their pilots.

Argentina was mindful/fearful of the political consequences and refused the latter.

[Marcantilan]

Peru sent attack aircraft to Argentina as well as airborne munitions and also offered the services of their pilots.

Argentina was mindful/fearful of the political consequences and refused the latter.

Well, Peru sold to Argentina some Mirage 5s and AS-30 missiles. In any case, they took no part in the conflict. More important were the jettisonable fuel tanks: were in short order in the AAF Mirages and they were badly needed.

Also, Peru sent Strela Sams (SA-7), Ecuador 35mm ammo, Lybia mortars / mines / more SA-7, Brazil loaned 2 EMB-111 aircraft and other countries gave minor things.

Some countries also provided intel to Argentina, but that`s still a black story.

And, of course, the rejected offers mainly came from communists countries, like MiGs from Cuba, ships from USSR and others. But, as I said before, needed a payment "not in money"

Regards!

[Wreford-Brown]

Marcantilin makes a good point, but Argentina never questioned the background of the population when it approached the UN. If Argentina uses the 'imposed population' argument then Texas should belong to Mexico (1836, three years after the Falklands). I think this is unlikely to be ratified by the United Nations Security Council!

UN Resolution 2065 (1965) listed the Falklands as a colony and reminded members that under Resolution 1514 (1960) they had undertaken to 'bring to an end everywhere colonialisation in all its forms' but caveated it with 'only in the interests of its population'.

In 1981 the Falkland Islanders refused full UK citizenship, preferring instead to remain a protectorate. If next years vote retains this view, the UK will continue to defend its protectorate regardless of Argentinean posturing.

Where I live there have been a series of radio articles about the war centred on Royal Naval officers view that when the Falklands war started they were shocked, because until that time the Argentinean Navy had been friendly with the UK sending many officers to train with them. When the Belgrano was sunk, many RN officers were surprised because their Argentinean naval friends could have been on board. Hopefully there is a way out of this particular incident pit...

[Marcantilan]

interests of its population.

More rivers of ink regarding what means "interests of its population" and why UN didn´t say "wishes of its population". I insist, this one is a difficult issue.

In the other hand, Argentine Navy officers work together (even on early 1982!) with Royal Navy to solve certain problems with Sea Dart missiles. I have a pic showing ARA Santisima Trinidad and HMS Sheffield alongside, on 1981. Sadly, months later, war happened and people who work together died.

Regards!

[Wreford-Brown]

More rivers of ink regarding what means "interests of its population" and why UN didn´t say "wishes of its population". I insist, this one is a difficult issue.

I absolutely agree - the vagaries of UN political speak leave too much wriggle room if politicians want to misinterpret what was said, and sometimes this can lead to war.

There are Iraqi and Afghan officers training in the UK alongside their UK counterparts - hopefully one day we'll see Argentine officers here as well.

[Jimbuna]

I'd be really interested in what the intel was and who from because the size and quality of the storm heading the Argentinians way (presuming the intel included such detail) should have sent a clear message for them to get out of the Falklands asap.

[Wreford-Brown]

I'd be really interested in what the intel was and who from because the size and quality of the storm heading the Argentinians way (presuming the intel included such detail) should have sent a clear message for them to get out of the Falklands asap.

The UK sent the wrong message:
When an Argentine nationalist landed on the FI in 1967 and tried to 'capture' the islands he was arrested but returned to Argentina. This led to the perception that the UK government considered the FI an Argentine matter and had little interest in its affairs.
In 1976 Argentina occupied South Thule and we didn't react. The next year, Argentina threatened to occupy FI, UK said nothing publically but sent a small task force and the threat disappeared.
We had removed HMS Endurance (an ice patrol ship) and announced that it was to be decommissioned.
We were due to close our British Antarctic Survey base at South Georgia.
The Islanders had been denied UK citizenship.
The UK government had offered to lease FI to Argentina for 99 years (although the offer was rescinded in 1981).

Taken individually, over the course of 15 years, none of these issues had raised an alarm but when put together they sent a relatively clear message that led Argentina to believe that the UK wasn't interested in FI.

In 1982 the only way to reinforce FI was to ship down, which was a long and arduous journey. Things are slightly different now, with UK keeping its best RAF fighters in FI and maintaining a large enough ground force to keep the airfields open for the two brigades we keep at readiness. FI is firmly kept on the radar.

[Jimbuna]

The UK sent the wrong message:
When an Argentine nationalist landed on the FI in 1967 and tried to 'capture' the islands he was arrested but returned to Argentina. This led to the perception that the UK government considered the FI an Argentine matter and had little interest in its affairs.
In 1976 Argentina occupied South Thule and we didn't react. The next year, Argentina threatened to occupy FI, UK said nothing publically but sent a small task force and the threat disappeared.
We had removed HMS Endurance (an ice patrol ship) and announced that it was to be decommissioned.
We were due to close our British Antarctic Survey base at South Georgia.
The Islanders had been denied UK citizenship.
The UK government had offered to lease FI to Argentina for 99 years (although the offer was rescinded in 1981).

Taken individually, over the course of 15 years, none of these issues had raised an alarm but when put together they sent a relatively clear message that led Argentina to believe that the UK wasn't interested in FI.

In 1982 the only way to reinforce FI was to ship down, which was a long and arduous journey. Things are slightly different now, with UK keeping its best RAF fighters in FI and maintaining a large enough ground force to keep the airfields open for the two brigades we keep at readiness. FI is firmly kept on the radar.

Two brigades-ten thousandish personnel eh? 10% of our total strength :hmmm:

I remember the points above but that leaves me wondering if Maggie was aware of the risks and the move by the Argentinians was predicted/hoped for because the situation certainly saved her political bacon.

I doubt if we'll ever know the truth.