Might I suggest that even a Navy officer might, when confronted by ten ferries in open water rather than their usual coastal haunts skimming along at 40 kts towards the Falkland Islands from the general direction of South America, come to the conclusion that something is amiss. But then, maybe, my confidence in Naval officers is misplaced.
I did not want to get involved in this debate as I feel it is getting into the realms of fantasy...
Firstly how many times are we going to read about so called friendly fire incidents where a church or mosque is bombed and then we discover the occupants of those places were innocent men women and children attending a perfectly innocent wedding... I'm sorry but to me that is not an accident...
To assume merchant ships, flying a civilian flag and possibly registered in a state\country of convenience are carrying solely armed soldiers from a country intent on attacking British sovereign soil might be acceptable to some BUT IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE to the Royal Navy. Would we be operating under the terms and conditions of a United Nations Resolution or would we be operating solely on our own and using our own rules of engagement?
The MINIMUM either of these authorities (UN resolution or ROE) will possibly demand is that the British warship contacts the ship via VHF and demand they divert or stand to and be boarded.
Not a task for a submarine..
If these merchant vessels refuse to comply then the next stage will be to possibly contact the country of registration, so take your pick from any country of convenience but this is what will most definitely be required to establish what is being carried by that merchant or civilian vessel.
No matter the time of day the most stringent methods MUST be used to contact the owners of that ship and all the time these vessels are steaming toward their destination.
If after the most exhaustive methods have failed to locate the owners then the warship MIGHT get permission to fire shots across the bows.... How close are we now to the shores of Port Stanley?
Again this will rule out our submarines and getting close enough to use 'small arms' is a ridiculous non starter.
If these vessels have failed to answer their radio, and we have failed to contact the owners of the ship, and they have also failed to stop after having shots fired across the bows then the stakes are raised. The wires between the warship ship and MOD will be red hot... The wires between the MoD, Foreign Office and possibly the Prime Minister will now be glowing and who is going to make the next decision?
Send a boarding party!!!
Again that rules out the submarine..
Sending a boarding party to a fast moving, high sided merchant ship that is being uncooperative is not for the faint hearted and once more..
This rules out the submarine.
If those merchant ships have not reached their destination we are now looking toward our politicians that usually can never make an important decision without first asking just about everyone and their dog for advice
'How will this look on the front pages?
Will this win me votes?
What coloured suit should I wear?
Once all these and other less significant questions are answered like possible loss of innocent lives, then and only then might the warship get permission to possibly put live round or rounds into the bridge!!!
Why am I suggesting such caution?
You tell me there are
NO CHILDREN on that ship...
You tell me with
ONE HUNDRED PER CENT certainty what the intentions of those ships are!..
It is a high possibility that someone could load these ships with young children, the old, the infirm, ordinary families all being offered cheap holidays just to see the 'Malvinas'.
Their government had NO intention of any invasion they just want to exercise their right of free passage and of course to get World publicity to highlight their cause. They could also be 'cheating' and have all these passengers PLUS thousands of soldiers stowed away below decks. Woe betide any GUNG HO idiot that thinks its clever to kill first and ask questions later.
Apologies if this post is too long
Apologies if I am wittering, but make no mistake..
I am British, I am proud to be British, I am proud of the way we protected the rights of those that have voted to live the way they want. I am proud of our military for their professionalism, the manner in which they removed those that wanted to force a different lifestyle on those that live in the Falklands and I will be the first to vote for a second conflict if it is deemed necessary, but we have to exercise caution and not engage trigger before engaging brain...
You do not blow up merchant ships that may well be flying the Panamanian or any other South American flag of convenience just because you think they might be carrying soldiers... It would not matter if those
civilian ships were flying the flag of Argentina, as long as they are civilian registered then due diligence has to be carried out. The cargo has to be checked, the occupants have to be checked and if not then we must stick to any mandates or rules of engagement
If they were seconded to the military and they flew the correct military flag then that might well be a different scenario!
Military flag
Civilian Flag
Subtle differences, but differences of significance. Military ships that enter the territorial waters of another nation without permission are being 'very naughty' and there may well be consequences for that act of aggression!