USS Iwo Jima to the Royal Navy

[Marcantilan]

http://news.usni.org/news-analysis/n...alklands-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.

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]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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

.

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]

Originally Posted by Marcantilan

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]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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

Originally Posted by Gargamel

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Herr-Berbunch

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!