Could anyone explain why exactly Britain was perfectly willing

Argentina doesn't have nukes, and it's full of British people who want to remain British.

File: Hong Kong.jpg (1MB, 1920x1120px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1120px

... but not this?

>>1771178
>>1771182
UK owned Falklands, the Argentinian aggression was illegal, Argentina had basically no ability to fight back.
HK was subject of a treaty explicitly stating that it'd be returned to China, China couldn't realistically be kept from occupying it, trying to hold HK would make UK a world pariah and ultimately lead to nothing but the destruction of its economy.

>>1771194
Should have nuked China senseless.

Would have been a better start to the 21st century than this 9/11 bullshit.

Intense pressure from the Welsh for sheep purposes

>>1771194

That treaty wasn't with the communist state though
Honestly, they could have gone through with it but the British were too cucked from WW2 and anti colonization.

>>1771232
The rest of the world sees teh PRC as the legal and rightful successor of the Qings,

>>1771243

Incorrect, or at least not the U.S. The U.S only had ties with Taiwan initially.

>>1771194
>would make the UK a world pariah
hahaha

>>1771178
because china has nukes you cockshitter

>>1771232
Than UK would need to give up HK to Taiwan. Imagine the shit storm.

>>1771215
>hurrr killing hundreds of millions of innocent people would be way better than killing 3000 innocent people

>>1771194

>Argentina had basically no ability to fight back.

This isn't true actually.

Argentina had bad luck with dud bombs. They could have won if not for that.

>>1771289
Eh Taiwan wasn't (also isn't) really recognised by anyone as a legitimate state, so if Britain made that claim it would have to change a great deal of its foreign policy.

Really where they fucked up was giving back the concessions.

>>1771369
>Argentina could have won if it wasn't for dud bombs
The fuck? The Argies were so strapped for equipment that they were flying trainer jets with weapons bolted to them.

>>1771194
>giving it to commie china not true china
plz

>>1771405
The airforce were pure madmen. They managed to score at least 10 other hits on ships, but since the bombs were being used in a fashion they were not designed for they didn't explode, thus saving the task force

>>1771369
>Argentina had bad luck with dud bombs
If you could simply blow up the eternal anglo, they wouldn't really be eternal, would they?

>>1771356
>innocent people
>Chinese

Wrong

>>1771405

>The fuck? The Argies were so strapped for equipment that they were flying trainer jets with weapons bolted to them.

Argentina had a pretty decent air force at the time. Yes, they were at a disadvantage but they still could have won. They managed to hit several British warships, but the bombs didn't go off properly. If those bombs had gone off as intended, we'd be calling it the Las Malvinas war instead of the Falklands war.

I subscribe to the theory that the bombs didn't work properly because they were designed to be used against ground targets. When they were used against ships, they over penetrated and went straight through the ship without exploding.

>>1771356

>chinks

>people
>innocent

>>1771178

Honor.

>>1771178
>Argies throw a bunch of 16 year olds with WW2-era equipement to "re"take those god forsaken islands

That was some North Korea-tier madness.

>>1771194
there's also the fact that falklanders wanted to remain part of the empire while hong kongers wanted to be a part of china, because I'm sure they'll respect our autonomy, totally totally sure.

Not going for full independence when they had the chance was such an incredible mistake. They could have been like Singapore.

>>1771588
pretty much just this

>>1771182
The Chinese didnt start an invasion making the brits look like complete clowns. Argies got arrogant and forced the brits to react with force or lose face to any other similar claim.

>>1771592
>hong kongers wanted to be a part of china

what

>>1771215
And get nuked in return?

>>1771592
Last I checked Hong Kongers are incredibly bitter they got left to be taken ower by retarded communists.

>>1771248
>initially
>refused to even think about Chinese communists for 50 years
>initially

>>1771232
The PRC was recognized by all UN security council members in 1972 as the inheritor of the Qing Empire and the only "China".

>>1771248
>Incorrect
[Citation needed]

In 1997 the UK recognized the PRC as the rightful inheritor of the Qing Empire and its treaties.

>>1771248
"initially" being the key word
Now, the US recognizes the PRC as China

File: image.jpg (216KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1032x774px

>>1771551
>>1771568

>>1771607
The Chinese had, and to some extend still have, very little second strike capability.

No early warning radar. Nukes need to be fueled before they can be launched.

File: 1475205232783.jpg (47KB, 529x502px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 529x502px

>>1771592

>while hong kongers wanted to be a part of china,

>>1771620
>Chinese
>people
>willingly letting part of your country be subjugated when you have the ability not to

pure degeneracy

>>1771622
Can you explain how the UK's 4 nuclear submarines would sail all the way across the world and nuke enough of China to stop its ICBM's?

You are a fucking retard.

America itself would have cockblocked the UK, and it did by standing by China on the HK issue.

>>1771609
They were not in 1997.

Remember, the Umbrella protests failed miserably. The majority of HKers vote for the pro-Beijing party.

>>1771623
Mind finding a source stating the contrary?

>>1771624
(You)

>>1771628
>explain how the UK's nuclear submarines would sail all the way across the world

Simple.

They're nuclear submarines.

They generate their own thrust, air, and water.

Just sail them shits in and hit all of the ICBM sites and air force bases you can.

Most of China's ICBMs in 1997 couldn't even hit the UK. They might get Hong Kong, but death is better than communism.

>>1771638
Oh right, its just that one butthurt sinoboo.

File: 1461823204710.png (376KB, 674x674px) Image search: [Google]

376KB, 674x674px

>ITT: /pol/tards display a complete lack of understanding on the subject of International Relations theory

>>1771650
>he thinks that /pol/acks strict adherence to Realism is a lack of understanding
Lol

>>1771650
>Implying anyone has tried a nuke first ask questions later policy in international relations.

>>1771656

Britain took the Realist approach in NOT defending Hong Kong you nutter. /pol/acks don't understand why the UK gave it up.

They literally advocate threatening another country with nukes.

I'm a Realist myself and /pol/ has zero knowledge on the subject.

File: Curtis_LeMay_(USAF).jpg (1MB, 1694x1935px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1694x1935px

>>1771657
We did

>>1771661
Remember, the last couple of times America was debating whether to nuke someone and didn't, it was a mistake.

If we'd busted out the canned sunshine during the Berlin Blockade, the world would be a dramatically better place.

>>1771660
>Britain took the Realist approach in NOT defending Hong Kong you nutter
It was a Liberal approach, not a Realist one.

>They literally advocate threatening another country with nukes
Nuclear deterrence is a huge realist standpoint.

>I'm a Realist myself and /pol/ has zero knowledge on the subject
Apparently, it is you that has no understanding of IR theory. Did you take Intro to IR and skip most of the classes and proclaim yourself an expert or what?

>>1771661

Kennedy was unable to go through with it though. Lemay was absolutely begging Kennedy to let him bomb Cuba to oblivion during the Missile Crisis and Kennedy wouldn't allow it.

>>1771666
>tfw we didn;t listen to Macarthur
>tfw the feds were too busy harassing oppenhiemer to check up on karls fuchs and co
s m h

>>1771620
Why is his sword Chile?

>>1771676
>tfw the world objectively became worse because of some limpdick pretty boy fuck up from Massoftwoshits

>>1771671

Realism doesn't imply you go to blows over every event. The UK understood that strategically it would have literally no hope in defending the area, especially when after the lease on their mainland holdings ended, all it would have left was Hong Kong Island itself.

Seeing that it is a realist approach to defend a nation's survival and allocate resources in the most efficient way possible (in terms of national defense), the cons far outweighed the pros of defending Hong Kong from a rabidly nationalistic PRC.

On the concept of nuclear deterrence, and if you have studied IR, you'll know that after 1989, no Western country would dare to threaten another country with the use of nuclear force lest it receive massive backlash at home and the Western community at large.

The world is not a Grand Strategy game and things are not carried out "for muh pride". It a series of strategic calculations which weighs up the pros and cons and what would be irresponsible and what wouldn't in relation to a countries survival and sovereignty.

>>1771666
possibly, but I think things worked out alright without killing hundreds of millions of civilians (and losing millions of our own)

>>1771688
Hey, if we'd done it in '48 everything would have worked out fine.

>>1771671

There was really no hope of keeping Hong Kong away from China.

>>1771686
Britain leveraged the transfer of Hong Kong to the PRC under the benefits of mutual cooperation and benefit which is a liberal standpoint, not a realist one. This was literally Thatcher's point on the matter. That both countries could benefit from the transfer. Most of the concession was made over talks of economics, not force.

>you'll know that after 1989, no Western country would dare to threaten another country with the use of nuclear force lest it receive massive backlash at home and the Western community at large
The U.S. just threatened North Korea with nuclear bombing not even two weeks ago.

>>1771694
I'm not claiming there was. I'm disputing anon's interpretation of the event.

>>1771567
>I subscribe to the theory that the bombs didn't work properly because they were designed to be used against ground targets
Except that's wrong, you fucking retard.
They didn't go off because the pilots were flying too low for the fuses to engage. Had they flown high enough to engage the fuses they'd have been blown out of the sky.

>>1771638
>The majority of HKers vote for the pro-Beijing party.

No. Only mainland niggers brought in by Beijing vote for the pro-Beijing party.

File: 1456714972542.jpg (193KB, 600x739px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 600x739px

>>1771661

>>1771178
>muh empire

>>1771182
Britain has always been a coward nation
Going to war against Argentigger isnt the same as against Modern China

>>1771609
>The situation now is the same as it was back then
There's protests to return to British rule now because they believe they could become independent more easily. Hong Kong doesn't really want to be ruled by anyone.

>>1771178
5 vs 2

Vs

5 vs 7

>>1771356
>innocent people willing to destroy the entire island via nuke

File: 1458512905466.jpg (492KB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 5000x5000px

>>1771178

Jesus Christ, as someone who takes an actual interest in the Falklands War this thread is abysmal. The circumstances between Hong Kong and Falklands were wildly different. This is all available on the fucking Wikipedia.

Before the Falklands War, the British government had entered negotiations / talks with the Argentine government of the possibility for handing over governance to Argentina. This gave signals to the Junta that Britain, which had/was experiencing seriously political/strategic/cultural/economical decline was not willing nor capable to defend the Islands.

The Junta looking for a quick political victory given their own political instability, without major diplomatic fallout, took the opportunity to invade when the only Royal Navy vessel was distracted dealing with scrap merchants to prevent hostilities.

The Argentine forces were small, but a modern, competent force. Equipped with a mixture of western equipment (including British warships) because fuggin commies :D:D:D:D::D

The British forces, also being modern, competent force had a focus on anti-submarine warfare (excluding land components in Germany) guarding the GIUK gap against the Russia submarine forces.

The one problem was that the Junta had placed the Iron Lady's back against the wall with the invasion, which is the one thing you didn't do. This was truly a test of the British armed forces. Despite the Army, RAF and the US Navy say this would be an impossible task. The British task force was still assembled and launched.

Both nations fought well, given the circumstance. The Falklands War remains the first and if not most major naval Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) conflict this side of history.

>>1772796

At the strategic level, there's no such thing as innocent people, only countervalue targets.

>>1771178
Malvinas is a strategic location over the Cape Horn and also for projection to Antarctica, in an eventual future division of that continent

File: england.png (747KB, 1020x746px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1020x746px

>>1772847
>Both nations fought well, given the circumstance.

Post-sending-the-fleet : was there any point form Argentina to fight this war?

>>1772901

Who knows, it might have bought the Junta more time.

>>1772901
they should have made runways to operate fighters and bombers, also mining the strait between the islands and coordinate actions between army, navy and airforce (each force fought their own war separately)
oh and use working ordenance

>>1771671
>It was a Liberal approach, not a Realist one.
>ok lets just go to war with a country with the largest standing army in the world over a city that we in fact promised to give back 100 years ago in a legally binding treaty just because they are commies.

I can't even begin to point out how stupid this idea is, not to mention the international backlash that would have occured.

>>1772930
A lot of people don't get that the cold war had a large propoganda element to it. Or, /pol/ doesn't get that the cold war had a large propaganda element to it.

File: 19512-1uydt7w.jpg (229KB, 1520x911px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1520x911px

>>1772916
Ok say they did all this and Argentina had the equivalent of Major Katsuragi at the helm - was the force realistically going to be sufficient to deter British ambitions?

I mean looking at the list of casualties they destroyed 2 destroyers and 2 frigates - but surely 4 or 5 times the sinkings (incl a carrier) would have been required?

>>1773003
I´d say they would have a fair chance to force negotiations at least.
Another thing was they had only a handful of exocet missiles. If only they had waited a few months they would have received more from France (they had ordered at least 24 missiles)

>>1773003
>I mean looking at the list of casualties they destroyed 2 destroyers and 2 frigates - but surely 4 or 5 times the sinkings (incl a carrier) would have been required?

The air attacks at the bay leading to the of the two frigates and one destroyer was a mistake. They should have only focused on the transports. Not the escorts. The Argentines fell for the bait.

The sinking of HMS Sheffield was due to having her radar is in a state that prevent it from being fully operational.

The SS Atlantic Conveyor, was not a carrier. It would be more apt to call her a aircraft/supplies transporter.

File: dominant british ceramics.jpg (9KB, 210x170px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 210x170px

>>1773033
>received more from France

You see, this is exactly the perfideousness I'm talking about.

>>1773056

Agreed.

My god would I watch Falkland War : The Anime.

Call it like

Iron Lady Island Rumble

or like

Falkland Fight Turbo X Horizon

or like

Fate of Heroic Sheep Peoples No Sakura

or some shit.

>>1771567
Argies can't use bombs properly

'no but u see if the bombs had magically worked outside their operating parameters argentina would totally have won onest'

File: 1474486426201.jpg (396KB, 1570x1536px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 1570x1536px

>>1771661
>tfw the man who gutted TAC and led to USAF underperforming in Vietnam is worshipped on /his/

>>1773347
he had the edgy factor

File: This picture annoys Argies.jpg (916KB, 3413x2358px) Image search: [Google]

916KB, 3413x2358px

>>1773033
France and the UK had agreed to stop the delivery of Exocets during the conflict (most of the west was co-operating with the UK during the war, the USA even offered to lend them an amphibious assault ship)

>>1772606
>[Citation needed]

File: PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg (571KB, 1420x873px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1420x873px

>>1771182

Nukes

>>1771681
that's what I want to know too

>>1771706
> U.S. just threatened North Korea with nuclear bombing not even two weeks ago

What? Citation fucking needed.

>>1774336
only thing I've found is the U.S. recently threatening 'severe consequences' if the Norks keep going with their nuclear programy and saying that they cannot allow NK as a nuclear power. That's a long fucking way from 'hurr durr do what we say or we're gonna nuke u' though.

>>1774351
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/us-threatens-north-korea-with-severe-consequences-if-it-flouts-nuclear-ban?0p19G=c

>>1773347
"NUKE THE GOMMIES :DDDDDDD" is all the /pol/ faction cares about.

>>1772557

This.

They did an awful lot of things wrong since the capture of the islands. One of them was not working on those fuses once figured that extremely low altitude attack bombing, in order to avoid radar lock on, would the norm for the Argentinian Air Force against the english ships. Not mining the landing areas was another massive fuck up, as well as not building an air strip in Malvinas where jets could operate from. The army deployment there was also terribly planned with for the most part conscripts with inadequate equipment and terribly bad deployed and etc.

In spite of all this the Air Force fought with extreme bravery and Argentina could have perfectly won if not for all the blunders.

File: Based Deng.jpg (106KB, 399x580px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 399x580px

>>1771178
"I could stroll in and take the whole place in one afternoon."
>Iron
>Lady

>>1771681
>>1774325
/leftypol/ butthurt over pinochet's helicopter meme

>>1774698
>Argentina could have perfectly won if not for all the blunders.

"They could have won except that they did losing things and so lost" is an argument that never gets old. I guess at least it means they weren't so outgunned that they never even had a chance?

>>1775011

>"They could have won except that they did losing things and so lost" is an argument that never gets old.

That's probably because it is basically true. If Argentina had known about the bomb fuses a little bit earlier in the war, it could have made a big difference.

>>1771182
China holds all of Hong Kong's water supply. If the UK refused China could literally just turn off the tap.

>>1775074

Turning off the water in a place so densely populated would cause thousands of deaths within days.

>>1775080
This is China we're talking about.

>>1771178
>>1771182
Fighting a third world country with outdated equipment.
or
Fighting a powerful country with nukes.

Such a difficult decision.

>>1771178
muh we wuz empire

basically the same reason they voted for brexit and will be a 3rd wold country in a few years.

>>1771650
>someone says something I think is stupid
>call them /pol/
>that'll show em
??

>>1771681
Some people wondered which country's shape would make a good weapon

>>1775087
It wasn't outdated at all.

>>1775011

They did have a chance. The odds were stacked in their favour.

>>1771194
>HK was subject of a treaty explicitly stating that it'd be returned to China

Wrong.

>>1771178
Wanted to seem big and tough again.

What you guys say about nukes isn't a real argument. Tatcher was perfectly willing to nuke Buenos Aires to the ground, a city bigger than Hong Kong, over the Falklands until France stepped in.

China back then didn't have the capacity to touch the UK, so it would have been in the right spot to threaten China with nukes, as it did with Argentina.

The real reason the UK didn't defend Hong Kong was because they were pussies.
Anything else is mental gymnastics.

>>1779853
The target considered was Cordoba, Argentinas second city and were most of the military industry is located

>>1771194
>HK was subject of a treaty explicitly stating that it'd be returned to China
How the fuck has nobody ITT challenged this yet? It's a complete lie.

The treaty applied to the outer territories, not to the city itself. That was fully British indefinitely. Britain just handed over one of the richest parts of its sovereign territory to a foreign power. It's incredible how shamelessly Brits keep rewriting their history in an effort to hide from others and themselves how pathetic it is.

How do I reply directly to another user

>>1771178

There is an old underground alien base there.

seriously. and i hate /x/

>muh empire

>>1779909
Oldfag here - I find it strange that no one brought that up at the time, or even during the entire half-decade it was constantly in the news here in the US, predicting horrible, dire consequences from what was advertised to be the inevitable transfer.

Besides, when we were treaty bound to pass Panama back, we found... Other ways... To make sure it'd turn out the way we wanted.

>>1779943
Oh this I gotta hear - do tell.
http://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1475551928589.webm

>>1779928
Click on their post number.

>>1776728
Yes it was. The Argentinian flagship was literally a scrapped WWII American light cruiser.

>>1780027

Which had received modernisation, even if the General Belgrano had not been upgraded, that still wouldn't of representative of the entire Argentine forces.

They were a modern force.

>>1781271
Fairly certain they're at least 30-40 years behind the brits - the brits being fairly cutting edge. Particularly true in logistics and training.

At the time, they almost would have been better off facing the US - it being so prone to friendly fire.

>tfw you learn your army had to grab a payphone in order to call the Pentagon and tell the navy to stop shelling them during the Panama invasion.

>>1771178
>>1771182

>Could anyone explain why Britain was perfectly willing to go to war over a part of its sovereign territory which was illegally invaded by a foreign power but wouldn't go to war to break a treaty it had signed with a sovereign government stating that Hong Kong would be returned to China

wow! it's a fucking mystery!

>>1781583

You don't know what you are talking about. Just stop.

They were a regional power with modern western equipment. This is non-disputable.

>>1781736
I admit I'm not well versed as to the Argentinian military, but if they do have a modern western military, they'd be the only ones in the region to be so equipped. But after a bit of research...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
...It raises the question as to how they managed to lose against a much smaller and much more overextended force. (Plus the misuse of retard bombs, suggesting they weren't even well versed on what they had.)

The only submarines they had, for instance, were built in '71 and '73, one of which wasn't even deployable for the war. Their mortars, like their destroyer, were similarly WW2 era, with artillery in use since the 50's (the most common being the OTO Melara Mod 56). Their surface to air missiles were SA-7 Grails from the late '60's. Their anti-aircraft batteries were Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannons designed in the 50's. Their aircraft were from the 70's, as were their amphibious land vehicles, mostly of types that hadn't seen action since Vietnam (or, in the case of the LARC-V, since Korea.)

The dreaded Exocet missile was their only effective modern asset, but it was deployed, mostly, from makeshift land-side launchers, as the results of firing them from Dassault-Breguet were mixed, at best, one attempt resulting in the loss of the plane.

Though it would explain why they managed to put up as much as a fight as they did - the US, at the time, was telling the British it wouldn't be worth the effort.

>>1779853
>china didn't have ICBMs in 1997
(You)

>>1780027
>Scrapped
It was old, but it wasn't scrapped. The USN gave away all of their Brooklyns to South American navies to bolster them.

>>1779909
Non-treaty HK was completely integrated to and reliant on the New Territories. It would have made no sense to only hand them over. Maggie actually wanted to do just that, but was given the hard facts.

>>1781858
>The only submarines they had, for instance, were built in '71 and '73, one of which wasn't even deployable for the war.
10 years is not considered old for a warship; a large portion of ships used in WW2 were modernized WW1 era ships
>Their mortars, like their destroyer, were similarly WW2 era, with artillery in use since the 50's (the most common being the OTO Melara Mod 56).
There was little difference between artillery used in WW2 and artillery used in the 80s other than weight and slight changes in ammunition.

>Their surface to air missiles were SA-7 Grails from the late '60's.
And the bongs used Blowpipes and Americans used mostly Redeyes which were the same generation of MANPADs.
>Their anti-aircraft batteries were Oerlikon 35 mm twin cannons designed in the 50's.
The 35mm guns made by Oerlikon are used today on Gepards and Marksman SPAAGs.
>Their aircraft were from the 70's
Almost all combat aircraft used in the early 80s were from the 70s.
>as were their amphibious land vehicles, mostly of types that hadn't seen action since Vietnam (or, in the case of the LARC-V, since Korea.)
The Vietnam war ended less than 10 years before the Falklands war began. Even the US army was still using most of the same equipment as the Vietnam war during the time of the Falklands war.

>>1781928
Fair point - despite all that browsing wikipedia, somehow I got it in my head this conflict took place in the 90's - probably because I still remember the newscasts vaguely - either that or the old addled brain is giving me the Mandela effect again.

>>1781858

Won't address the points that have already been made, unless I can add something to them.

>...It raises the question as to how they managed to lose against a much smaller and much more overextended force. (Plus the misuse of retard bombs, suggesting they weren't even well versed on what they had.)

Multitude of reasons, but arguably (based off r-adm. John Woodward words) failure to sink the carriers.

>The only submarines they had, for instance, were built in '71 and '73, one of which wasn't even deployable for the war.

That's pretty modern, the British had serious trouble sinking that one deployed submarine aprox 200 ASW weapons were fired at it.

>like their destroyer

They had two modern Type 42 AAW destroyers, the exact same class as the Royal Navy had.

>The dreaded Exocet missile was their only effective modern asset, but it was deployed, mostly, from makeshift land-side launchers, as the results of firing them from Dassault-Breguet were mixed, at best, one attempt resulting in the loss of the plane.

Generalised, opinionated nonsense.

>>1781983
>The dreaded Exocet missile
>Generalised, opinionated nonsense.
The post in general is flawed, but the Exocet missile was extremely effective, and all over the news. The panicked media made it sound like you could sink the entire US fleet with a few dozen of them.

>>1782017

You are fully aware that wasn't the part I was taking issue with.

>>1782032
The rest is fact, SFAIK. It was deployed mostly by makeshift landside launchers, and one launch attempt by plane resulted in the plane's self-destruction. So far as I can tell, the only successful air-launched ones were the ones that sank the HMS Sheffield, and that succeeded, largely, due to radar failures. (Or that at least seems to be the reigning excuse - article kinda smells of folks covering their asses.)

>>1782066
>The rest is fact

Nope. Not even remotely true. The Argentines had a multiple effective assets.

>It was deployed mostly by makeshift landside launchers

This is incorrect. They were mostly *deployed* on warships (deployed != fired). Regardless, five Exocets were fired from air (two kills) and only two from land (one miss and one hit, but no kill - HMS Glamorgan only suffered minor damage and continued to be used operationally).

>HMS Sheffield, and that succeeded, largely, due to radar failures. (Or that at least seems to be the reigning excuse - article kinda smells of folks covering their asses.)

She was not at general quarters, she was also in the middle of satellite communication which interfered with her radar.

>>1782203
IC - clearly wikipedia just has it in for the Argentinians and those of us who can't be bothered to do original research. (Although that is, more or less, part of the radar 'failure' they describe.)

>>1782235

Nah, its just that it lacks the autistic detail that you and I care taken an interest in.

I'd recommend reading the USN report, pretty gud reading:

handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA133333

>>1774304
>secures a nuke-free base of operation
>doesn't put it to use