Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ig!bionet!agate!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Last Sub Attack?
Message-ID: <5826@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 22 Apr 89 04:30:18 GMT
References: <5736@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5790@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
In article <5790@cbnews.ATT.COM> goofy!apple.com!teener@apple.com (Michael Teener) writes:
>... Note that the Argentines claimed that the Belgrano was never in 
>the war zone, but the British (obviously) disagreed.  Does anyone know 
>what was really going on?

The Belgrano was definitely outside the Total Exclusion Zone (if I remember
the term correctly) around the Falklands.  However, it was not outside the
"war zone" because (a) this was not officially a war, and (b) there was no
official "war zone".  If one stipulates that it was proper for British forces
to attack Argentine forces at all, without a formal declaration of war, then
there was nothing improper about the attack on the Belgrano.  It simply
happened to occur in an area where the British hadn't advertised their
intentions quite as clearly.

I believe it has been definitely established that the Belgrano was outside
the TEZ and also headed away at the time that it was sunk.  However, it is
difficult to attach much significance to those facts.  The Belgrano was
unquestionably charged with attacking the British fleet when possible, and
was definitely considered a serious threat.  The only greater threat was
the Argentine carrier (whose name translates to "25th of May" but which
I can't reproduce in the original without looking it up), which stayed in
port after the Belgrano was sunk.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu