ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
Why is everyone so concerned about the Belgrano? And not Sheffield,Ardent,Arrow or Coventry? Or Atlantic Convey, Sir Tristam, Sir Galahad or the 7 or so ships damaged by the Argentinians?
That's a little like the Japanese whinning about Leyte Gulf after Pearl Harbor? [:D]
Exactly!
It goes back to the comment made about a peculiarity of man. War is the ultimate means to an end, the most brutal and the most violent way to acomplish those means. And people always die. Yet we have a tendancy to try to dress it up almost as an honorable sport....with rules and conduct. (Geneva convention is a great example) Admitedly I have a big discomfort when thinking about this peculiarity. Admitedly I am 'warmed' by reading accounts of opponents who fight hard but when it's over the victor treats the loser with generosity and even geniality. It makes for great stuff.
Then you read about wars where there's no illusion of civility. The Pacific war is the best example on this board naturally and so hard are the feelings and such are the racist undertones of that conflict that it impacts us to this day....here on this board via the comments of some. Don't believe me? Start a Japan vs US comparison thread on any topic.....planes...Wildcat vs Zero.....Surface proficiancy, and the #1 favorite of thread lockers.....attrocities. Hell we draw in people who don't even own this game who want in on that hatefest. Then there's the Russo-German conflict....the biggest most brutal no holds barred war man has ever seen. Neither side was under any delusions there. It was kill or be killed.
In the modern age, we've gone back to the rules of war.....and try to make war as painless and bloodless as possible. Desert Storm to me remains the ultimate example.....i recall the jublilation and amusement both civilians and military spectators alike had as Gen Schwartzkopf narrated the saga of the "Luckiest Man in Iraq" as he drove his truck over a bridge just seconds before a Cruise missile demolished it. Even at that moment, after a nervous giggle of my own.....i felt that disquiet. If you make war painless and bloodless....then what's to stop future wars from happening?
As far as the Belgrano is concerned....i think that it proves another tru-ism. Rules of war are great......as long as you are winning or at least moving forward. If the rules suddenly become "inconvenient"....then they tend to get bent....sometimes even broken. In the end the UK decided to eliminate what they saw as a clear threat. It isn't unreasonable to also think that maybe they were trying to send a message to Argentina as well. "This is not a game....and it's going to cost you more than a few missiles and/or aircraft" I try not to judge leader actions in most cases because there's an arrogance to doing so...as well as the poison of hindsight. It reminds me of a discussion i had at the pub yesterday about Obama. Without being political, the opinion forwarded to me was "He waffled". My response was....."Did he really waffle vs. campaign promises or is it the realization that a leader can't get things done in a democracy without making deals and compromises.....esp with the US system of government. I left it at that. I can't imagine what it must be like to be a political leader or a general.....but i can sound fancy on the Internet. [;)] [;)] [:D]
Just me rambling this morning. Ultimate point for me is i try not to judge past leader actions too arrogantly. Its hard to make decisions when your on the hotseat and lives are potentially at stake. Thats a big difference between wargames and real life too!