After denying, finally some truth

[Maquilishuat]

Hello All!

After denying having brought nuclear weapons to the war, finally someone acknowledged this.

Read the article in The guardian, reproduced here.

Maquilishuat

MoD papers reveal Falklands nuclear fear

Rob Evans and Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday October 10, 2005
The Guardian


British commanders sailed into the Falklands war deeply concerned that the Argentinians could capture their nuclear weapons, previously secret official papers reveal.
The documents also include a graphic description by Christopher Wreford-Brown, commander of the submarine Conqueror, of the controversial sinking of the Argentinian cruiser General Belgrano with the loss of 321 lives.

They show the naval taskforce was dispatched in such haste that there was no time to remove nuclear depth charges carried on seven Royal Navy ships. Two of the ships, Hermes and Invincible, carried 75% of the navy's entire stockpile of nuclear depth charges, the papers reveal.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Offloading the weapons would have given the Argentinians more time to tighten their grip on the islands. But keeping them on board the ships was also dangerous. The papers show the extent of the concern. They say: "It was also conceivable that weapons might fall into the hands of the Argentines, by salvage, if one of the [Royal Navy] ships had been sunk, stranded or captured."
They add: "However unlikely, the consequences of this would be most serious and the acquisition of UK nuclear weapon technology in this way by a state which had no such weapon would have damaging consequences."

The papers include extracts from Cdr Wreford-Brown's personal log. "Orange fireball seen just aft of the centre of the target," he wrote after he torpedoed the Belgrano on May 2 1982. "Third explosion heard but not seen - I was not looking!" The previous day he recorded: "A good day - in contact with the Enemy at last!"

The papers have been posted on the Ministry of Defence website, after the MoD earlier refused to release them to the Guardian and other newspapers under the Freedom of Information Act.

The war cabinet agreed to change the rules of engagement to allow the sinking of the Belgrano, even though the cruiser was outside the total exclusion zone Britain imposed around the Falklands.

Cdr Wreford-Brown sent a signal to London four hours before firing his torpedoes, saying that the cruiser had changed course, away from the islands. The signal was received by Vice-Admiral Peter Herbert, flag officer submarines, but it was not passed on to the MoD or to Rear Admiral Sandy Woodward, commander of the Falklands taskforce. Sir Lawrence Freedman, who has written an official history of the conflict, says Admiral Herbert believed the task force "had to take its chances when it could".

[Sea Eagle]

Hi Otto,

The fact that nuclear weapons we taken to the Falklands war zone in haste has been well known for a number of years though not confirmed by the MOD. I understand they were removed and returned to the UK at the earliest opportunity to avoid contamination if any UK ships should be sunk. Nuclear depth charges were of little use against any underwater equipment owned by Argentina in any event. 'Conquerors' torpedoes were of the conventional type.

I was personally canvassed in a newspaper opinion poll, as a Falkland Islander, and asked if I would approve the use of Nuclear Weapons against the Argentine mainland military installations if things went badly for the UK in the Falklands. I replied 'Not under any circumstances'.

Regards,

Ernie

[Maquilishuat]

Hello Ernie:

This event is consistent with the rumors of threat that UK had done on bombing the city of Cordoba with a nuclear device. The ships that came to South Atlantic were all that were available to the British and I do not believe that only depth charges were brought. Probably you know but a British ship was purposely sunk after the war in a deep underwater location close to Santa Catarina, Brasil; this event was surrounded by secrecy and has all the ingredients to anyone deduct that something else was inside its cargo.

Apart from these facts the poll that you participated shows exactly the British minds and the joke that the non proliferation treaty is. If a nation is threatened it will use any weapons it might have, disregarding any previous agreement. That is why I see a nuclear deterrence for my country (and for other countries as well) as a useful protection against any international bully. Also, it shows the lack of principles that permeate nowadays in the international arena. Obviously protecting 2000 islanders was not the issue in this war, nor any national pride, no matter how the media propagates it. It was only the resources that were being granted, mainly oil.

Saludos from the Middle East, Otto

[Johnmcd]

Otto,
How are you!
Not aware at all of any ship sunk purposely sunk of Brazil...this a joke?

I guess following your logic Iran and Syria should also hold nukes!!

Best wishes,
John.

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John!

Long time no see!

No a joke; the only thing I am not sure is if this ship was British or someone else's caught in the middle of the war.

I would like you to state what divine right some countries have to have nuclear bombs and others not. Is Syria different from UK? Well, if we count the wars each one have been involved... Is Syria less reliable than UK? What about Brasil, may we have this type of armament?

I remember your postings before the war in Iraq, all of them based on lies. Have you learned something? Please do not take this question as an insult.

Saludos amigos, Otto

[Johnmcd]

Hi Otto,
“I remember your postings before the war in Iraq, all of them based on lies. Have you learned something? Please do not take this question as an insult”

No insult taken!

The war was not based on lies at all. It was based on UN resolution 1441. With Iraq about to publish its own national Constitution and Saddam going on trial next week - you need to ask the Iraqi people what they think!

Nuclear weapons.
It’s bad enough already with the US, Russia, China, France, UK, Pakistan, India, Israel, N Korea having these weapons. You may also think why no such weapon has been used since 1945! Today, the chances of a nuclear exchange are far greater than they were during the Cold War. Do you think if Chechnya got hold of one they would use it? I think they would. So would Saddam if he had got the chance. He was, after all, in the market for them.

Best wishes,
John.

Perhaps it was HMS Invincible that was sunk off the coast of Brazil…eh?

[Hutch]

"Obviously protecting 2000 islanders was not the issue in this war, nor any national pride, no matter how the media propagates it. It was only the resources that were being granted, mainly oil."

Really? I thought it was to stop a murderous, tinpot military dictatorship invading and annexing a neighbouring peacefull community in a surprise attack against a friend and ally.

Where is all this oil? The British have had over 20 years to extract it and its not like Argentina could do anything to hamper extraction. So where is it? Why would the British spend hundreds of millions fighting for oil and then not exploit it?

Still trying any technique at all to portray the British in a bad light and Argentina as the heroes? Sad really.

[Maquilishuat]

Hutch:

Please tell me where I portrayed Argentina as heroes in my posting. They just are trying to get back what is theirs. As usual the sovereignty is put aside, as some countries "deserve" its land or not.

Stopping a military dictatorship from invading? Oh please, if it were a democracy, would you not react?

The oil is there, and the opportunity to extract it depends on other interests.

Saludos, Otto

[Johnmcd]

Otto,
To my knowledge no democracy has ever attack another and Argentina has failed to convince most, save close hemispheric buddies, that the claim has any meaningful foundation.

Anyway, how's the weather in Oman?

Best wishes,
John.

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John:

Muscat now is with mild temperatures, comparing with some 4 weeks ago. My type of work requires me to travel a lot, most of the times close to the desert.

About democracies attacking other countries let us take a look:

1. US (a democracy) attacked Iraq based on what-you-already-know;

2. India ttacked Pakistan (or was it the other way around?);

3. UK attacked Iraq with no reason at all (ah, yes, those 45 minutes, no?);

4. US attacked Granada (what a shame...);

5. Peru attacked Equador (or was it the other way?)

And some non democratic states:

6. China attacked Vietnam (which finished the reasoning that comunist countries would not attack another comunist one).

So, to state that a democratic country will not attack another one is a fallacy, and not something based on facts.

About the legitimacy of the Argentine claim we already have discussed it.

We are in the holy month of Ramadan, so no drinks allowed...

My skype name is sectron, in case you have this program.

Saludos amigos, Otto

[Johnmcd]

Otto,
Now your original title..."After denying, finally some truth" might have much more impact.

From the UK Guardian:

Millions of Iraqis went to the polls yesterday, defying sporadic violence, as Sunnis, Shias and Kurds decided to use the ballot box, rather than the bullet - for a day at least - in a historic attempt to shape Iraq's future.
They were voting in a referendum on a controversial constitution that - if passed - will set the shape for the country's political development. Drawn up in large part by the Shia majority-led government and its Kurdish partners, it has left Sunnis complaining that it will make them second-class citizens.

After weeks of escalating violence, the guns and bombs fell largely silent yesterday, as large numbers of Sunnis for the first time participated in a national election after January's boycott. In hard-line Sunni areas, including areas of Baghdad and Mosul, it was clear they were turning out in droves to deliver an emphatic No to the constitution, while in other areas they were more divided.

In the city of Mosul, the Al-Wallah school echoed to the sound of sandals dragging across dusty flagstones as local Sunnis arrived to vote. In this well-to-do neighbourhood, occupied by military officers and Baath Party members under the former regime, they started coming as the doors opened at 7am, most determined to reject a document they say will make them second-class citizens.

They filed through concrete barriers and razor wire beneath American jets and helicopters, past US armoured cars, giving up watches, pens and mobile phones as they were searched at the door. It emerged a few hours later that a tip-off had identified this station as a potential suicide bomb target.

There were former officers, students, teachers and whole families, as well as pairs of tough-looking young men, all of whom trooped in under the eyes of Kurdish soldiers - the peshmerga - who had come down from Irbil to guard polling station Whisky 2.

Iraqis remain split over the 140-article draft constitution. Iraq's Shia majority (60 per cent of its 27 million people) and the Kurds (another 20 per cent) support the charter, which provides them with autonomy in the regions where they are concentrated. However, the Sunni minority, which dominated under Saddam and forms the backbone of the insurgency, widely opposes the draft, convinced it will eventually tear the country apart into Shia and Kurdish mini-states in the south and north, leaving Sunnis in an impoverished centre. Many feel the document does not sufficiently support Iraq's Arab character.

Last-minute amendments in the constitution promise Sunnis the chance to change the charter later. Even among the No voters, there are those who recognise the odds are against them. The defection of the Iraqi Islamic party to the yes camp last week will make it tough for the rejectionists to reach the two-thirds majority required in three out of 18 provinces.

But that has not halted efforts to get out the Sunni vote in places like Mosul.

Hamid Naif, 53, a former officer, expressed views that are almost universal in this area. 'You must have seen the film The Longest Day,' he said. 'How America and Britain liberated Europe! Why should you be surprised when we fight to end our own occupation?

'This constitution divides the different groups, and deprives some to give more to the others. It is therefore a moral and religious duty for us to bring it down.'

It is a message spread in the heartland of Sunni resistance by organisations like the Association of Muslim Scholars, by mosques, by tribal leaders and family heads. And it is a message that has been underlined by threats, sometimes, and by deliberate rumours - that those who do not vote will lose their right to their ration card.

With the vast majority of those interviewed by The Observer saying they had never seen the document, the campaign of both sides has been driven by suggestion.

Despite his support for the struggle against the US-led occupation, however, Hamid Naif holds a nuanced position. He is desperate for the foreign troops to go, but 'gradually' - not so fast it would exacerbate Iraq's problems.

Abdul Latif, 45, a merchant and father of six, insisted yesterday: 'It is a duty to vote. Each of us must do it to express our conscience. This constitution is good only for some Iraqis.'

While most told The Observer they had voted No, only the official count will reveal how the poll went at the Al-Wallah school.

'People are scared to say they voted Yes,' said a woman with a Glaswegian accent, who asked to be identified only as 'Mrs Mohammed'. A naturalised resident of Iraq for over 25 years, she had originally planned to vote No but, like her husband, changed her mind when the Islamic party swapped horses.

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John:

It is interesting to read your last posting after a while. Now it seems that most of what was written was just wishful thinking.

Saludos from Brazil, Otto