Could the Cod War have gone hot?

^That's not a typo.

Is there any possibility of the Cod Wars becoming more intense than in OTL?

One idea that I had is, what if during the Third Cod War, the British countered Iceland's threat to close the Keflavik NATO base by deploying soldiers there to defend it, and refusing to recall their fishing trawlers from Iceland's EEZ?
 

Thande

Donor
British governments avoided military options because of the sheer prospect for embarrassment. Nobody likes to be seen as the big bad guy picking on the plucky underdog, even if you're legally in the right. Maybe if some Britons in Iceland had been held hostage or some escalation along those lines?
 
British governments avoided military options because of the sheer prospect for embarrassment. Nobody likes to be seen as the big bad guy picking on the plucky underdog, even if you're legally in the right. Maybe if some Britons in Iceland had been held hostage or some escalation along those lines?

Perhaps if a British trawler and its crew were interned by the Icelandics? Things would go bad quickly if the British tried to forcibly free them, though the chances of that IMO are small.
 

Cook

Banned
People do not go to war just over fishing rights. They especially do not go to war just over fishing rights in international waters. They definitely do not go to war when they are both democracies, especially if it is just over fishing rights in international waters. And they emphatically do not go to war when they are allies, who are both democracies, especially if it is just over fishing rights in international waters.
 
People do not go to war just over fishing rights. They especially do not go to war just over fishing rights in international waters. They definitely do not go to war when they are both democracies, especially if it is just over fishing rights in international waters. And they emphatically do not go to war when they are allies, who are both democracies, especially if it is just over fishing rights in international waters.

I wasn't talking about a war. I was talking about a more intense dispute that involved more confrontation yet still short of a war.
 

Tovarich

Banned
"Gone Hot" as in a UK/Iceland War, no definitely not.
But "Gone Hot" as in nastier is a different matter.

I can remember News on telly about British tugs ramming Icelandic gunboats "threatening" British trawlers, with British frigates nearby.

And even though I was Primary-school age at the time, and my memories are therefore blurred, things escalating to a point where poor seamen - in an already dangerous profession - lose their lives in all the confusion is not actually ASB, I feel.
 
But....

While it would look a bit small-fry (bad fish pun!), the Turbot war going hot may have been quite bad - Spain, with EU backing trading shots with Canadian warships, especially if Royal Navy, or even the US gets involved (they wouldn't want a war on their own doorstep). I don't think the UK would be in the EU for long....

As for the Cod war, if it did go hot, it would bean even worse foreign relations disaster for the UK. It would hurt UK/EU relations, possibly to the point of breaking them, and the UK would end up in a position as embarrassing as the Suez climbdown. I doubt that it would get any hotter than ships bumping into each other, though, I do recall reading that Iceland were trying to beef up their Navy by buying Soviet built frigates (Mirkas?).
 
Well, if the EU did start trading shots with Canada it would also be hard not for the US to get involved. While I still find it seriously unlikley it would have set a very different tone for the past 15-20 years of European - American relations with Britain perhaps pitifully left in limbo. the latter depends upon both PM Major and the British population and how they react.

Russell
 
Well, if the EU did start trading shots with Canada it would also be hard not for the US to get involved. While I still find it seriously unlikley it would have set a very different tone for the past 15-20 years of European - American relations with Britain perhaps pitifully left in limbo. the latter depends upon both PM Major and the British population and how they react.

Russell

I'm not quite sure why the USA would even need to get involved (except perhaps to offer its services to negotiate a settlement)

The Canadian navy, in home waters and supported by the RCAF is perfectly capable of dealing with any Spanish incursion. The WU has no navy..maybe the French would come to Spains help (that would be interesting to Quebecs domsetic politics..:) but I cant see anyone else wanting to get involved.
The only European country with the resources to conduct a campaign at that range is....Britain. Who if they do anything will be helping Canada (the chance of British domestic politics allowing Britain to help Spain against Canada is, well, ASB. That is if the goverment ever want to get reelected, no matter how pro-EU they are...)

Although consequences could be interesting....a escalation, British public opinion (if nothing else) forces RN ships to the area, shots get fired..no-one is going to take it further over a few fish, but could Britain stay in the EU after that??
 
Agreed, if the Turbot War goes hot, regardless of who starts shooting first (IIRC live rounds were fired several times as warnings), then the RCN and RCAF are well capable of ejecting any Spanish or other European vessels from Canadian waters.

The more interesting knock-on effect is the maritime territorial dispute with France re: St. Pierre and Miquelon. The French would have to be careful not to provoke the Canadians into doing anything drastic there.

p.s. I don't understand how IOTL the UK came to support the Canadian position so strongly, since Canada's stance seems to mirror Iceland's in the Cod Wars.
 
The UK supported Canada due to internal politics. Major had a majority of one or so and he needed to keep the Eurosceptic right onside, as well as the right wing press, all of whom would have blown their tops had the UK backed the Spaniards/Europeans over the Canadians.

That said I think more or less any UK government of whatever political stripe would have had to take a similar position because as has been mentioned the PR impact of backing smelly continentals over English-speaking subjects of the Crown would be dreadful.
 
p.s. I don't understand how IOTL the UK came to support the Canadian position so strongly, since Canada's stance seems to mirror Iceland's in the Cod Wars.

That said I think more or less any UK government of whatever political stripe would have had to take a similar position because as has been mentioned the PR impact of backing smelly continentals over English-speaking subjects of the Crown would be dreadful.

Exactly this, as an Englishman who has lived in Australia and travelled in Canada and NZ as well as all over continental Europe I assure you that I and 95% of British people would instinctively back any of the former Dominions against any EU/EU country (apart from maybe Ireland) unless the former Dominion was massively in the wrong. Like torturing Spanish tourists live on CBC wrong and even then UKIP would argue that the Spaniard had it coming.
 
People do not go to war just over fishing rights.

I think you don´t realize how much money is involved in fishing rights. It´s right, that two democracies in Nato, would probabably never go to war. (Almost, under any circumstances, emphasis on almost)

But, had this happened in some other time, war might well have occurred.
 
Top