Nautical Madness
Madness Part 1
It seems that following the admission of the MoD that HM warships carried nuclear depth charges during the Falklands War, Johny Argie is demanding an apology. Maybe we should demand an apology for the 255 servicemen that were killed & 777 wounded as a result of the Argentinean invasion.
What might be interesting to find out is if either of the two attack submarines deployed was carrying naughty little nuclear tips for their torpedoes. If so, why didn’t say HMS Conqueror use one & take out the entire Belgrano battle group? I am sure that that would have elicited an even swifter Argentinean surrender & thus saved British lives. Sod what the World thinks, don’t go and invade our people. I will have to ask the Old Salthorse about this, over a Christmas glass or five; why do I suspect that he will take the fifth?
Madness Part 2
Also there is proposal from the European Commission that national fisheries protection vessels e.g. Royal Navy ships should carry an official from another member state that in certain circumstances can give the captain orders. Orders like what? Not to sink the French fleet.....again!
Frankly, I do not know why we bother with fisheries protection. Since Sir Edward ‘Rot in Hell’ Heath sold the UK out to the EU & oversaw the destruction of the UKs fishing industry, why bother? There are no fish left as a result over fishing, primarily by the Spanish.
Madness Part 3
I see that Josu Ortuondo Larrea, a Spanish MEP (Tree Hugging Party) & man I have long admired – yeah right, is proposing that all EU merchant ships should carry the ‘Ring of Stars’ (the mark of the Devil more likely) on their ensigns.
This, I am advised will require amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. I wonder what the merchant sailors, who sailed under the Red Ensign & lost their lives in the Battle of the Atlantic would think about that. I will just leave that question open.
It is probable that at least one quarter of the men who were in the British Merchant Navy at the outbreak of war did not survive until the end.
Just for the record, by May 1945 at least 30,000 merchant seamen had died. Thousands of men from Allied navies and air forces, as well as many civilian passengers, also died.
In the North Atlantic alone, over 2,200 British and Allied merchant ships were sunk. Of these, no less than 2,003 had been sunk by U-boats. 100 Allied naval vessels and over 600 RAF Coastal Command aircraft were also lost in the Atlantic.
Of the 830 operational German U-boats, at least 750 saw service in the Atlantic or British coastal waters. Of these, 510, or two out of three, were lost. Over 18,000 U-boat men died.
Comments
The U.S. Navy carries nuclear devices on some ships but will neither confirm or deny their presence on any particular ship. I assumed the British Navy has a similar policy. Every ship does NOT carry nuclear weapons. The ships that do have passed a very strict security and weapons handling criteria and are continually tested to maintain standards. Those that drop below the standards lose the weapons. I'm sure the Brits do likewise. The decision to use nuclear weapons is not made aboard the ship carrying them, it is made by the highest command authority. In the case of the U.S. it's a decision only the President can make, I'm assuming that in the U.K. it's a decision that the Prime Minister makes.
Nuclear (atomic) weapons have only been used once with the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that was before the full and lasting effects were known. I seriously doubt that any of the "big powers" would ever initiate a nuclear attack. To do so would invite the condemnation of the rest of the world. Even a "small" or "tactical device" such as a nuclear depth charge would bring world political condemnation that the offender would never get past.
The "Argies" KNEW that the U.K. was a nuclear power equipped ICBM's and ballistic missile submarines when they invaded the Falklands. They were betting that nuclear weapons would not be used and they were right. It seems to me that this is just a lot of smoke and manure now. The Argentine leadership must be having another internal crisis they want to divert attention away from, which is why they started the Falklands war to begin with.
I think they should express their gratitude that nuclear weapons were not used to completely destroy their third rate fleet while it was hiding in port and/or flatten their cities. (I can only think of one off hand, but I assume they have other cities.)
The British response to the invasion was measured and restrained. Maybe the Argies should consider what COULD have happened and be grateful.
Note to MoD: Whatever twit "admitted" to nuclear weapons being aboard ships engaged in the Falklands War should be assigned to Antarctica to assess the efficacy of rayon beach wear in the Antarctic winter.
Posted by: StinKerr | December 10, 2003 3:49 AM