Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbuna
The vessel in question was named after a general and not an admiral  |
Did I put that in my article or was it the UKDJ article (my question mark key doesn't work)
I hadn't actually read the UKDJ article until just now I am surprised George would make a minor mistake like that.
I do note George doesn't post sources when he writes but you wouldn't expect that in a news outlet I guess I try and keep mine to a pseudo academic format so people have the ability to see the source and also challenge it.
Bilge rat: yes Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone however as noted it mattered not seeing as the ROE changed on the 23rd April and the argentines knew it.
There's still a lot of this is a war crime she should have been sunk stuff that flies around from many sides so I wanted to lay it out with evidence from both sides that proves it wasn't.
I am of the opinion that your also correct it was the UK sending a message to the world that don't think were a push over.
But as I also noted I think there was also more to play here, I agree the carrier was more a threat overall, but as mentioned if the UK sank the carrier it would undermine the USA defense policy which is carrier based strategy and subsequently reinforce the soviet doctrine which was to counter the carriers with submarines.