NME
@nme365.bsky.social
All fair points. But how significant were the risks of getting detected and/or losing contact, and how much would those risks have increased if the Conqueror shadowed the Belgrano for a few more hours?
December 10, 2025 at 6:25 AM
All fair points. But how significant were the risks of getting detected and/or losing contact, and how much would those risks have increased if the Conqueror shadowed the Belgrano for a few more hours?
I'm not saying they should have waited for the Belgrano to reach threat distance. If the Belgrano had travelled the short distance into the TEZ, it still would have been hundreds of kilometers away from the fleet, leaving plenty of time to make an attack and scatter if needed.
December 10, 2025 at 5:45 AM
I'm not saying they should have waited for the Belgrano to reach threat distance. If the Belgrano had travelled the short distance into the TEZ, it still would have been hundreds of kilometers away from the fleet, leaving plenty of time to make an attack and scatter if needed.
I agree that Argentina should not have invaded the Falklands and I agree that they do not have much if any standing to complain about the sinking of the Belgrano.
December 10, 2025 at 4:34 AM
I agree that Argentina should not have invaded the Falklands and I agree that they do not have much if any standing to complain about the sinking of the Belgrano.
I think the strategic situation facing England in 1805 was materially different from the situation facing the UK in May 1982.
December 10, 2025 at 4:33 AM
I think the strategic situation facing England in 1805 was materially different from the situation facing the UK in May 1982.
The "issue at hand" is whether the HMS Conqueror sinking the ARA Belgrano at 55° 24' S, 61° 32' W at 4:00 p.m on May 2nd, 1982 may have constituted an avoidable strategic/diplomatic misstep in light of all the circumstances that existed at that time.
December 10, 2025 at 4:31 AM
The "issue at hand" is whether the HMS Conqueror sinking the ARA Belgrano at 55° 24' S, 61° 32' W at 4:00 p.m on May 2nd, 1982 may have constituted an avoidable strategic/diplomatic misstep in light of all the circumstances that existed at that time.
I was hoping you being weird and hostile yesterday was a one-off, but apparently not!
December 10, 2025 at 3:21 AM
I was hoping you being weird and hostile yesterday was a one-off, but apparently not!
I think whether Space France made a strategic misstep would depend on a wide variety of factors, including the overall diplomatic situation of Space France, the size of the TEZ relative to the range of Space India's weapons, the relative capabilities of the space forces of the opposing sides, etc.
December 10, 2025 at 3:17 AM
I think whether Space France made a strategic misstep would depend on a wide variety of factors, including the overall diplomatic situation of Space France, the size of the TEZ relative to the range of Space India's weapons, the relative capabilities of the space forces of the opposing sides, etc.
I think you know my answer to that question already, and I feel like we're going around in circles.
December 10, 2025 at 3:02 AM
I think you know my answer to that question already, and I feel like we're going around in circles.
They certainly got 'em before that happened, and I'm glad that they did. I'm just pointing out that it's a stretch to claim that there was a need to engage her outside the MEZ, given the distances and ranges involved.
December 10, 2025 at 2:55 AM
They certainly got 'em before that happened, and I'm glad that they did. I'm just pointing out that it's a stretch to claim that there was a need to engage her outside the MEZ, given the distances and ranges involved.
(I never said it was a war crime)
December 10, 2025 at 2:46 AM
(I never said it was a war crime)
(the above statement doesn't apply if they pose an immediate threat despite being on the other side of the line)
December 10, 2025 at 2:29 AM
(the above statement doesn't apply if they pose an immediate threat despite being on the other side of the line)
I'm not saying that the RN wasn't allowed to operate outside the MEZ. But I do think you invite allegations of duplicity if you say "don't cross this line or I'll kill you" and then kill them while they're on the other side of the line.
December 10, 2025 at 2:28 AM
I'm not saying that the RN wasn't allowed to operate outside the MEZ. But I do think you invite allegations of duplicity if you say "don't cross this line or I'll kill you" and then kill them while they're on the other side of the line.
I appreciate that, and I agree that we're likely nearing the end of productive conversation here.
December 10, 2025 at 2:23 AM
I appreciate that, and I agree that we're likely nearing the end of productive conversation here.
...yes? That was part of their strategy?
December 10, 2025 at 2:19 AM
...yes? That was part of their strategy?
What are you talking about?
December 10, 2025 at 2:18 AM
What are you talking about?
From a diplomatic standpoint, there is no value (and potential harm) in fostering the perception that you're acting duplicitously.
December 10, 2025 at 2:18 AM
From a diplomatic standpoint, there is no value (and potential harm) in fostering the perception that you're acting duplicitously.
Maybe in theory, but I've seen little to suggest that the two destroyers relied in any meaningful way on the Belgrano to coordinate effective offensive action.
Re: the threat profile of the Exocets, it is worth pointing out that the range of the sea-launched Exocets was significantly less.
Re: the threat profile of the Exocets, it is worth pointing out that the range of the sea-launched Exocets was significantly less.
December 10, 2025 at 2:16 AM
Maybe in theory, but I've seen little to suggest that the two destroyers relied in any meaningful way on the Belgrano to coordinate effective offensive action.
Re: the threat profile of the Exocets, it is worth pointing out that the range of the sea-launched Exocets was significantly less.
Re: the threat profile of the Exocets, it is worth pointing out that the range of the sea-launched Exocets was significantly less.
If the claim is that the RN was engaging Argentine vessels without any regard whatsoever for the MEZ, then they should have just retracted the MEZ.
December 10, 2025 at 2:08 AM
If the claim is that the RN was engaging Argentine vessels without any regard whatsoever for the MEZ, then they should have just retracted the MEZ.
Okay, but you're talking about different ships. The destroyers originally formed a separate task force before joining up with the Belgrano, and clearly were capable of operating separately from her.
December 10, 2025 at 2:07 AM
Okay, but you're talking about different ships. The destroyers originally formed a separate task force before joining up with the Belgrano, and clearly were capable of operating separately from her.
Yes, they did in fact sink the Belgrano. I do not disagree with that statement.
They communicated that they would engage things outside the MEZ to the extent necessary, which invites a conversation about whether it was necessary.
They communicated that they would engage things outside the MEZ to the extent necessary, which invites a conversation about whether it was necessary.
December 10, 2025 at 2:05 AM
Yes, they did in fact sink the Belgrano. I do not disagree with that statement.
They communicated that they would engage things outside the MEZ to the extent necessary, which invites a conversation about whether it was necessary.
They communicated that they would engage things outside the MEZ to the extent necessary, which invites a conversation about whether it was necessary.
Two British vessels were sunk by air-launched Exocets fired by land-based fighters.
December 10, 2025 at 1:55 AM
Two British vessels were sunk by air-launched Exocets fired by land-based fighters.