Royal Navy Deployed Laser Weapons During the Falklands War 139
Zothecula writes "Despite recent demonstrations by the US Navy, we still think of laser weapons as being things of the future. However, previously-classified British documents prove that not only were the major powers working on laser weapons in the 1970s and 80s, but that they were already being deployed with combat units in war zones. A letter from the Ministry of Defence released under the 30-year rule reveals that laser weapons were deployed on Royal Navy ships during the Falklands War in 1982, and that the British government was concerned about similar weapons being developed behind the Iron Curtain."
Re:Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, the British were very versed in sailing in the southern hemisphere by that stage, they'd spent over 100 years sending boats to where I live, Australia. ;)
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
you declare war, you get war,
priority 1 render the enemy incapable or unwilling to take its objectives,
priority 2 try to avoid loss of life on your own side, or on the part of enemy civilians where possible (in that order),
there is no 3
leaving the enemy unharmed because they might die if you kill them seems a little soft even for me. if they are or might be a threat and you can be rid of them without a significant risk to yourself then that is what you do, if they have not surrendered then that means lethal force. If they are still a threat then left the field of battle intact means can come back and try again with fresh stocks of ammo.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is that guy the armchair general troll but the guy he responded to is not an armchair general troll? The first guy, as far as I know, made up this story. The second guy asked for a source and provided a little data to counter it.
Now, if there's something to back it up -- some source for the "supposedly" -- then maybe. Currently the second guy seems more credible to me, though not nearly credible enough that I'd believe him without doing my own research if I really cared.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As a member of the UK public at the time, most of us didn't care what direction the Belgrano was heading, if it was the vessel of an enemy which had occupied UK territory then we wanted it sinking. It was being ambiguous which had got the UK into trouble in the first place, so something as unambiguous as a torpedo was sending the right message as far as we were concerned.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
HMS Sheffield was sunk by an Exocet from a Dassault Mirage two days later, most likely as revenge
Not really, firstly it was launched from a Super Etendard not a Mirage, secondly the Sheffield attack was the second or third attempt by the Argentinian Navy to attack the carriers using exocet, the Argentinian navy went to a lot of effort to get the Etandarts exocet capable and were intending on using them against the Royal Navy carriers long before the belgrano was sunk. If the exocet attacks were reveng then as advocated by most combat instructors they were trying to get their revenge in first.
. Critics are of the opinion that if UK hadn't been the first to sink an enemy vessel then none would have been lost on either side.
Critics are like arseholes....sorry no Opinons are like arseholes every critic is one. Sorry nope I'll get it right eventually ... Opinions are like arseholes everyone has one, ignore the opinions be guided by the facts. Given that the argentinian Navy was actively seeking out the royal navy carrier battle goup with three task forces and two air attacks on the day the Belgrano was sunk it was obvious that someone was going to come off badly. Unfortunately for those onborad the belgrano she was it. Perhaps ironically as of all the Argentinian navy ships she was best suited to survive a torpedo hit, as some of her sisters did in big mistake II.