A NATO "civil war" in the North Atlantic

This POD occurs about a generation or so ago, during a dispute over fishing rights, after Iceland declared a 200 mile exclusion zone around itself. British [and others] fishing boats continued to work inside the exclusion zone, and tensions increased. I don't remember how it was resolved; or if it was, but there was an incident where the Icelandic gunboat Thor was rammed by a British warship after it tried to interfere with British fishing boats. Now the POD begins. OK, now what if world opinion went strongly against Britain; they were accused of acting like a schoolyard bully' taking advantage of poor little Iceland, fishing is all they got, etc. Public opinion was rabidly against Britain in the Scandinavian countries, so much so that the governments of Norway, Denmark and Sweden recalled their ambassadors from London, and threatened stronger action of Iceland didn't get a better deal.
To back up their word, Norway sent a destroyer, and Denmark despatched 2 frigates to the area of South East Iceland. The British boats continue to fish, Thor comes along again to stop them, and once again a RN ship rams Thor. But all of a sudden the Norwegian ship fires a shot across the bow of the RN destroyer, and her captain gets on the radio to his British counterpart, saying he is under strict orders from his govt. and has orders to fire on the Brits if they don't leave the Icelanders alone. The Danes concur with this. All of them are horrified at the thought of actually having to possibly shoot at the British, but they have been read the riot act, and know they will be court martialled if they don't strictly adhere to their orders. The governments in Copenhagen and Oslo are deadly serious.
So what happens next? Do the Brits blink first, do the Norse really have the will to carry out their threat, or what. I really can't see this turning into a shooting war, but stranger things have happened.
BTW, I realise this whole situation isn't entirely plausible, as Iceland had problems with Danish? fishing boats in later years, fishing inside the 200 mile zone, but lets overlook that and decide how far things could go in the name of Scandinavian 'unity'.
 
This POD occurs about a generation or so ago, during a dispute over fishing rights, after Iceland declared a 200 mile exclusion zone around itself. British [and others] fishing boats continued to work inside the exclusion zone, and tensions increased. I don't remember how it was resolved; or if it was, but there was an incident where the Icelandic gunboat Thor was rammed by a British warship after it tried to interfere with British fishing boats. Now the POD begins. OK, now what if world opinion went strongly against Britain; they were accused of acting like a schoolyard bully' taking advantage of poor little Iceland, fishing is all they got, etc. Public opinion was rabidly against Britain in the Scandinavian countries, so much so that the governments of Norway, Denmark and Sweden recalled their ambassadors from London, and threatened stronger action of Iceland didn't get a better deal.
To back up their word, Norway sent a destroyer, and Denmark despatched 2 frigates to the area of South East Iceland. The British boats continue to fish, Thor comes along again to stop them, and once again a RN ship rams Thor. But all of a sudden the Norwegian ship fires a shot across the bow of the RN destroyer, and her captain gets on the radio to his British counterpart, saying he is under strict orders from his govt. and has orders to fire on the Brits if they don't leave the Icelanders alone. The Danes concur with this. All of them are horrified at the thought of actually having to possibly shoot at the British, but they have been read the riot act, and know they will be court martialled if they don't strictly adhere to their orders. The governments in Copenhagen and Oslo are deadly serious.
So what happens next? Do the Brits blink first, do the Norse really have the will to carry out their threat, or what. I really can't see this turning into a shooting war, but stranger things have happened.
BTW, I realise this whole situation isn't entirely plausible, as Iceland had problems with Danish? fishing boats in later years, fishing inside the 200 mile zone, but lets overlook that and decide how far things could go in the name of Scandinavian 'unity'.

Quite ASB, in my opinion. There was really good reason for the British and the Icelanders to get into a shooting war about this. Granted, wars have been begun over more stupid things, but still...

I think the only plausible things to happen in this scenario (allowing that Norway and Denmark still support Iceland) is an incident at sea. For example, perhaps the Norwegian ship fires a shot or two across the British bow. More likely than not, the British would react with surprise and anger--but I would count on the fact that cooler heads would prevail.

If Scandinavian and/or British sailors are hurt or killed in the incident, I still can't imagine an actual war happening. The UK would issue a harsh condemnation and withdraw their ambassador from the Nordic country, or vice versa. Most likely the USA would force the two sides to the negotiating table before anything really nasty happened. Perhaps I'm naive, but I just can't see a British captain opening fire on a fellow NATO ally because of fishing rights.
 
Quite ASB, in my opinion. There was really good reason for the British and the Icelanders to get into a shooting war about this. Granted, wars have been begun over more stupid things, but still...

I think the only plausible things to happen in this scenario (allowing that Norway and Denmark still support Iceland) is an incident at sea. For example, perhaps the Norwegian ship fires a shot or two across the British bow. More likely than not, the British would react with surprise and anger--but I would count on the fact that cooler heads would prevail.

If Scandinavian and/or British sailors are hurt or killed in the incident, I still can't imagine an actual war happening. The UK would issue a harsh condemnation and withdraw their ambassador from the Nordic country, or vice versa. Most likely the USA would force the two sides to the negotiating table before anything really nasty happened. Perhaps I'm naive, but I just can't see a British captain opening fire on a fellow NATO ally because of fishing rights.

Worst comes to worst the US sends a carrier fleet to the area to cool things down.
 
IMHO, if you want a NATO civil war, it's more likely that the Greeks & Turks start slugging it out over Cyprus which soon spreads to the mainland...
 
The idea wasn't to creat a NATO civil war for the sake of it, but to discuss what might have happened during a dispute over fishing rights. This always seems to be a very emotional issue. I come from a maritime nation, and we have had numerous cases of shootings over this, including the sinking of one of our patrol boats by Cuban migs in 1980.
I agree about Greece and Turkey BTW. I remember the 1974 blowup over Cyprus, and that was a very near thing.
IMHO, if you want a NATO civil war, it's more likely that the Greeks & Turks start slugging it out over Cyprus which soon spreads to the mainland...
 
Both sides rammed each others' ships, often when they were playing chicken and left it too long (and the British sent a few frigates to the area, not destroyers, which were quite fragile compared to the Icelandic CG vessels, but far quicker).

As to it being a shooting war? Not really, most especially not by the British (who'd have more to lose internationally). Perhaps some hyped-up Icelandic CG captain inadvertently shoots a few 40mm into the hull of a British frigate bearing down on him, but is arrested if he's caused any injuries - either forcibly by the British ship, who could, in extremis, use a helicopter guided missile or shipboard gunfire to disable the opposing vessel, or by the Icelandic authorities.
 
What about the following setup (reposted from SHWI) ?

Feb 1973

Despite a valiant effort to stop the lava with firehoses, a faster-moving lava flow from the 1973 Eldfell eruption traps a bunch of fishing vessels in Vestmannaeyar harbor and slowly entombs their wrecks under several meters of lava.

Apr 1973

Since the waters around Heimay aren't being fished any more, British trawlers routinely violate not just the 200-mile EEZ but the 12-mile limit of territorial waters. UK officially claims that they only recognize a 3-mile limit (it's not just about fishing, they don't want precedent for a 12-mile limit near straits like Gibraltar or al-Mandeb either)

Jun 1973

Iceland gets much more agressive, cutting nets and firing live rounds at trawlers inside the disputed waters. Angry headlines are printed in the Daily Mail, and the RN sends some sturdier vessels 'round to protect the fishers. The conflict escalates when a RN frigate rams and sinks the Icelandic coast guard vessel Aegir, with loss of all hands.

Iceland is really pissed-off at this point, and invokes NATO Article V (claiming the continued armed tresspass is an act of war) but the other NATO members fail to do anything helpful.

Jul 1973

The USSR (who could use hard currency) secretly offers to sell them surplus Petya and Mirka class frigates for use against imperialist oppressors. Delivery is scheduled for 90 days later, in October.

Aug 1973

The Althing votes to leave NATO and gives two-years notice (as required by the treaty) to vacate the base at Keflkavik. Ambassadors quickly arrive up to try and woo Iceland into reconsidering, but the U.K. stubbornly refuses to budge on the 3-mile territorial waters issue.

Oct 15 1973

The RN fleet squatting in Icelandic waters is quite alarmed to see several unmarked Soviet-looking warships approaching them, right in the midst of the Yom Kippur War. The vessels bear Icelandic flags, no doubt a Soviet trick. They refuse to be boarded and a firefight ensues.

Thoughts?
 
The obsolete Soviet warships and their unaccustomed crews get sunk by the RN as soon as they demonstrate hostile intent.

Even if it came completely out of the blue - which is ASB given NATO intelligence and the fact there is a large US base on Iceland during the Cold War, to say nothing of the fact Iceland would need to recruit and train crews for them etc. etc. - there were usually sufficient RN assets in the GIUK gap area within a day's sailing to blow them to pieces, most likely take a nuclear submarine off "snooping on the Soviets" duties to do it.

PS: If it were during the Yom Kippur War period, the RN would've been far more alert in case WW3 broke out.
 
Top