stony said:
A couple of facts for you. The captain of the Belgrano is on record as saying his ship was a threat and a legitimate target.
The sinking of the Belgrano had the secondary effect of keeping the Argentine navy, including their aircraft carrier out of the war. As soon as they realised we had hunter-killer subs in the South Atlantic, they shit themselves and turned for port.
This no doubt had an effect on the outcome. If they had been able to operate carrier-based aircraft from closer to the islands, the outcome of the war could have been very different.
Your assumption that the sinking prolonged the war is just sheer bullshit. There was no way they would have left the Falklands under their own steam and there is no way the British government would accept any form of peace while foreign soldiers occupied British territory.
I hate Thatcher and everything she stood for, but you are letting your hatred of her blind you and you're spouting the biggest pile of bollocks I've seen on here in a while.
The captain said on record that it had been a threat as it had been attempting earlier a pincer movement but due to the other ships and the weather it had withdrawn and when shot it was not actively a threat. You are right like Hiroshima it could have been an evil that saved far greater evil that will never be known. As for the war once it started it had to be finished and I don't begrudge that. But it doesn't mean individual aspect can't be questioned .
What is fact is that a number of South American governments led by Peru had put a peace plan together that day that Argentina was prepared to discuss but after Tempe Belgrano they refused. What is not known conclusively is whether Thatcher knew of the plan immediately and whether the Argentinians would have just talked and done nothing