Military assets are not safe from the repo man

[LexusInfernus 908]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/22/163384810/why-a-hedge-fund-seized-an-argentine-navy-ship-in-ghana?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20121022

Eh right, I think this is pretty much unheard of. A countries military assets being repo'd by a hedgefund. If this is legal, it represents a very very troubling move. I mean, we all know the US government is in a huge debt. What if some foreign financial company decides it wants its money back and I dunno....repossess an army base?

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Business is business. If the Argentines put this asset on the internatonal scene, it is not surprising that it was seen as available for seizure by a creditor. Can't really call this a repossession, as it was not sold on a hire-purchase agreement. It is simply an asset of a debtor and the creditor's repudiated debt is due.

By the way, that is a very nice three masted ship. Looks to be actually larger than Eagle, the U.S. Navy's sail training ship. And yes, sailors shouldn't be rated AB until they know the ropes on such a vessel, especially junior officers. If you are at sea in an aircraft carrier and you lose all your power, sail may be your only recourse to getting anywhere.

"And, damn it Mr. Bush, I can find mast heads even for senior officers." H. Hornblower, RN.

  Edited October 22, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[LexusInfernus 908]

Business is business. If the Argentines put this asset on the internatonal scene, it is not surprising that it was seen as available for seizure by a creditor. Can't really call this a repossession, as it was not sold on a hire-purchase agreement. It is simply an asset of a debtor and the creditor's repudiated debt is due.

Well thats the point. Argentina defaulted a decade ago, so technically that means these creditors can forget about their money. And again, that would technically allow any creditors office that loaned the US any money to seize a military base somewhere in Europe or somewhere else. That is ridiculous. And its not just the US. Its every nation that has debts, and every nation has debts. The moment they move their military out of their country, they are liable for seize by creditors.

Well, great way to start a war, see if your target has any open debts, lure their army out and put an injunction against them and seize it as payment for the debt.

By the way, that is a very nice three masted ship. Looks to be actually larger than Eagle, the U.S. Navy's sail training ship. And yes, sailors shouldn't be rated AB until they know the ropes on such a vessel, especially junior officers. If you are at sea in an aircraft carrier and you lose all your power, sail may be your only recourse to getting anywhere.

"And, damn it Mr. Bush, I can find mast heads even for senior officers." H. Hornblower, RN.

Somehow I doubt you can move an aircraft carrier with sails. It takes a nuclear reactor to move those things. Also, I think that in order to command an Aircraft carrier group, you need to be part of the Airforce. Not sure if you also need a rank in the Navy as well.

[Duke87 1,070]

Just another reason why having too much debt is unwise.

Of course, if anyone attempted something like this with the US Navy you could be sure a dozen other ships would show up to seize the ship back into their possession.

[hym 358]

Well thats the point. Argentina defaulted a decade ago, so technically that means these creditors can forget about their money. And again, that would technically allow any creditors office that loaned the US any money to seize a military base somewhere in Europe or somewhere else. That is ridiculous. And its not just the US. Its every nation that has debts, and every nation has debts. The moment they move their military out of their country, they are liable for seize by creditors.

Argentina defaulted, but that doesn't mean that it is free of all its debts. While 93% of its debt was discharged, that leaves Argentina with 7% of it's original debt that it is obligated to repay. If you're in that 7%, you have a legitimate claim to repayment, which Argentina is apparently not doing.

Also, I think that in order to command an Aircraft carrier group, you need to be part of the Airforce. Not sure if you also need a rank in the Navy as well.

In the US, aircraft carriers are controlled by the Navy. The Air Force has little say in them.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

Somehow I doubt you can move an aircraft carrier with sails. It takes a nuclear reactor to move those things. Also, I think that in order to command an Aircraft carrier group, you need to be part of the Airforce. Not sure if you also need a rank in the Navy as well.

Not at all. A good set of fore-and-aft rigged sails could get any ship up to its hull speed. The only additional requirement might be to put down something to act as a centre-board. The hull speed of a ship that long without its machinery would be something on the order to 10 to 12 Knots with the proper rig. A dire emergency, but it would work. Beats the hell out of having a bunch of sailors in small boats rowing.

The problem would be stopping, not getting going. The mass of a large ship presents some interesting challenges. Even pulled hard up into the wind with all the sails backed, it would probably take a few miles to stop.

Newtonian mechanics, you know. If you push lightly on something, but enough to overcome drag, it will move and even accelerate. With the power steering out, they'd have to rig a tiller or steer with the sails. Either could be quite practical. The tail section of a jet fighter would probably do the trick.

As for being in the Air Force, not so. Any navy that has aircraft carriers also has a fleet air arm. With all that water in the Netherlands, I'm surprised you don't sail, my friend. It is a great recreation, even in rough waters like the North Sea.

Of course you realize this is totally hypothetical. I can't imaging a carrier alone on the ocean without its escort fleet.

  Edited October 23, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[Easy Bakes 253]

you would probably have to rig some kind of Rudder as well if you wanted to steer. I don't think with out power you would be able to move the one's they have which weigh about 66k pounds.

the turns would also take several miles with something rigged up. you would probably have better luck just towing the thing with helicopters .

You really think you would be able to move a ship that weighs 97,000 tons? {the displacement of a Nimitz class carrier} with a few sails?

  Edited October 23, 2012 by Easy Bakes  

[VeritaScientia 150]

Business is business. If the Argentines put this asset on the internatonal scene, it is not surprising that it was seen as available for seizure by a creditor. Can't really call this a repossession, as it was not sold on a hire-purchase agreement. It is simply an asset of a debtor and the creditor's repudiated debt is due.

Well thats the point. Argentina defaulted a decade ago, so technically that means these creditors can forget about their money. And again, that would technically allow any creditors office that loaned the US any money to seize a military base somewhere in Europe or somewhere else. That is ridiculous. And its not just the US. Its every nation that has debts, and every nation has debts. The moment they move their military out of their country, they are liable for seize by creditors.

Well, great way to start a war, see if your target has any open debts, lure their army out and put an injunction against them and seize it as payment for the debt.

By the way, that is a very nice three masted ship. Looks to be actually larger than Eagle, the U.S. Navy's sail training ship. And yes, sailors shouldn't be rated AB until they know the ropes on such a vessel, especially junior officers. If you are at sea in an aircraft carrier and you lose all your power, sail may be your only recourse to getting anywhere.

"And, damn it Mr. Bush, I can find mast heads even for senior officers." H. Hornblower, RN.

Somehow I doubt you can move an aircraft carrier with sails. It takes a nuclear reactor to move those things. Also, I think that in order to command an Aircraft carrier group, you need to be part of the Airforce. Not sure if you also need a rank in the Navy as well.

In the US Navy, commanders of the eleven aircraft carriers are, by statute, pilots from the Naval Aviation community, they are not affiliated at all with the US Air Force. No country would ever dare seize an American aircraft carrier, all US aircraft carriers carry nuclear weapons as a part of the nuclear triad. The United States would throw a war if anyone attempted to seize one of our flattops.

Mr. Moose, the Eagle is a US Coast Guard vessel, not US Navy.

I am confident no attempt like this would succeed if it was an American vessel, though it does underscore our national need to control our deficit, something the past two administrations have failed at.

  Edited October 23, 2012 by PTPLauthor  

[LexusInfernus 908]

With all that water in the Netherlands, I'm surprised you don't sail, my friend. It is a great recreation, even in rough waters like the North Sea.

I prefer dry land under my feet. I know a lot of people sail or have a boat, but yeah, not really my kind of thing. I prefer a walk in the woods over floating in a large body of water anytime

In the US Navy, commanders of the eleven aircraft carriers are, by statute, pilots from the Naval Aviation community, they are not affiliated at all with the US Air Force. No country would ever dare seize an American aircraft carrier, all US aircraft carriers carry nuclear weapons as a part of the nuclear triad. The United States would throw a war if anyone attempted to seize one of our flattops. Mr. Moose, the Eagle is a US Coast Guard vessel, not US Navy. I am confident no attempt like this would succeed if it was an American vessel, though it does underscore our national need to control our deficit, something the past two administrations have failed at.

Yeah, but who would you go to war with? A hedgefund isnt exactly something you can invade or throw bombs at. And if they have a legitimate claim on some US debt, then why would the US be exempt from the rules that apparently do apply to the Argentinians?

[Easy Bakes 253]

because the US Navy probably don't finance their ships.

their money comes from congressional appropriation bills.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I fail to see what financing a ship has to do with this. The ship is just an asset of a defaulted debtor. It has nothing to do with where or how the original bonds were placed. It is just something of value owned by the debtor.

I don't think the Argentines distinguish between their CG (if they formally have one) and their Navy. Who owns Eagle is a quibble. Navy sailors have been known to train on her.

RCN has no sail training ships. Its a shame, but budgets being what they are ... In 1945 Canada has the third largest Navy in the world. Times really have changed. Peace has broken out.

Funny in both the U.S. and Canada the Coast Guard is known as the Senior Service. Founded first, and not terribly surprising.

[hym 358]

Yeah, but who would you go to war with? A hedgefund isnt exactly something you can invade or throw bombs at. And if they have a legitimate claim on some US debt, then why would the US be exempt from the rules that apparently do apply to the Argentinians?

The difference is that the US is paying its debts, so a creditor has no legitimate claim to seize assets. Argentina is not paying its debts, so creditors are seizing assets to force the country to pay.

Funny in both the U.S. and Canada the Coast Guard is known as the Senior Service. Founded first, and not terribly surprising.

FYI, the Department of Defense recognizes the Army as the senior service.

[Odainsaker 2,137]

The difference is that the US is paying its debts, so a creditor has no legitimate claim to seize assets.

Reminds us of the foolishness we saw this past July and August during the debt-ceiling crisis, when some political leaders actually pushed for a U.S. national default and a gleeful cutoff of payments to creditors as a radical way of short-circuiting the budgeting process and burning-down the Washington system through dieback and inverted social triage. Short-sightedly designed as a political point-scoring scheme against the President, the needless and artificial crisis merely managed to deeply spook the already weak and worried markets, prompted an almost immediate downgrade of the U.S. credit rating such that debt management becomes even more costly, and manufactured a new and even worse fiscal cliffhanger for year's end when all the temporary stop-gap measures we've been running since the Bush Administration expire and automatic cross-the-board cuts kick in. Creditors need not go after U.S. Navy ships, as there are plenty of American accounts, contracts, and financial investments around the world that would be easier to freeze and seize.

Senate Minorty Leader Mitch McConnell put it all in perspective: "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting. Most of us didn’t think that. What we did learn is this--it’s a hostage that’s worth ransoming. And it focuses the Congress on something that must be done." Good to know that the citizenry and their well-being are thought of as "hostages" in the brinkmanship game. Forget the tight November elections...the December fiscal negotiations will the cliffhanger to watch.

  Edited October 24, 2012 by Odainsaker  

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

In the long run, the miniscule understanding that the U.S. congress has of things international will cause even more excitement. The next State of the Union address by whoever is President may be interesting. With all the disarray in the most important legislature on the planet, things may very well be at Peter's Pretty Pass.

{For those who haven't read the Peter Principle, by Lawrence J. Peter, this is the point where you have to fish or cut bait.}

[krbe 193]

Countries can't default the way corporations and people do (well, really, not at all). If the US defaults, the White House will not become Hu Jintao's summer house, much like Casa Rosada still is the Argentinian president's office.

Was this a corporation it would have been liquidated, its assets appropriated between the creditors, and what the estate could not cover would be lost.

A country "defaulting" is more reminiscent of a debt restructuring; where the debtor and creditor negotiate new terms, etc. They can in many ways set their own terms on how and what they will repay; repayment is out of perceived need for trust in the money market, not because they exist under an jurisdiction where they are compelled to.

The seizing of a sovereign ship sounds dubious under international law -- you can't reposess an embassy and associated goods for example. For example, many countries fail to pay parking tickets incurred by their diplomatic staff using official cars, citing the Vienna convention's ban on taxes levied on foreign governments abroad. A variant of this is seen in the current case; the ship is not actually repossessed, merely held. If this had been a private corporation, the ship would have been seized and failure to pay up after final settlement in court would see it head for a foreclosure auction.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

There is a lot of open water here. Argentina has repudiated the bonds held by this company who purchased them in good faith. It is hard to take a sovereign country to court for debt. All countries issue bonds to raise capital. Unfortunately some of them overdraw their ability to ever repay the capital let along the interest. This is the thin edge of the wedge that will eventually shake the capitalistic system to pieces, and there doesn't seem to be an alternative on the horizon.

[Wiecher 192]

Isn't capturing a military ship an act of war?

How is it even legal for a company to do so? Away with corporate power.

And would this company have captured an American navy ship if that country was in debt with them? Probably not.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

There is a difference between seizure and capture. The Argentine crew remains aboard the ship (at least the Captain does). It is only an act of war if someone boards it and raises a different flag. I am afraid some people are just too excitable.

We know what a bunch of war mongers the Argentines are, so if there was an opportunity for them to distract their populace with a war with a little African country, you may be sure it would be on by now.

  Edited October 27, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[LexusInfernus 908]

There is a difference between seizure and capture. The Argentine crew remains aboard the ship (at least the Captain does). It is only an act of war if someone boards it and raises a different flag. I am afraid some people are just too excitable.

We know what a bunch of war mongers the Argentines are, so if there was an opportunity for them to distract their populace with a war with a little African country, you may be sure it would be on by now.

They arent that war hungry. Also, the African country is not at fault here. Its not like they are trying to hold the ship because they want money from the Argentinians. They are holding it because this hedgefund asked them to do it, in order to get the Argentinians to pay up to them. That is why this is so dubious, its a private entity meddling with a sovereign countries military.

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Argentine is currently a fiscal bad boy, and an example is being made.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I think you are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Argentine is currently a fiscal bad boy, and an example is being made.

No they are not. They defaulted like over 10 years ago and their economic crisis ended somewhere in 2002. They are not a fiscal bad boy anymore because a default quite often solves any debt problems a country might have. The only reason a country like Greece or Italy cant default is because they are part of the Eurozone. Otherwise they would have and it would have solved their problems as well.

And while they might try to make an example out of this, it sets a very dangerous one. Sure, right now its happening to Argentina and no one really cares about what happens in Argentina. Next time it might be a country slightly closer to home that suddenly sees its military assets getting held in another country because a private enterprise has asked the courts to do so due to outstanding debts. This essentially gives undemocratic, unaccountable private entities a whole lot of control over the sovereignty of a state. What international power have states if their armies can be held hostage by big private enterprises?

  Edited October 27, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[A Nonny Moose 8,263]

You are starting to get the picture. This is the ultimate result of the Capitalist paradigm. The corporate "funds" will wind up owning all kinds of things that it shouldn't. Big Brother is Watching You!

[hym 358]

They are not a fiscal bad boy anymore because a default quite often solves any debt problems a country might have.

Except that when Argentina defaulted, it didn't solve the country's debt problems. At the point of the default, Argentina managed to restructure approximately 76% of it's debt. Over the years, it has restructured up to 93% of it's debt, leaving 7% of the original debt to either be repaid or restructured. One of the claims made by those who hold the 7% of Argentina's original debt is that the country is using Swiss banks to shield cash reserves that could be used to easily cover the remaining 7% of the original debt. The position of the hedge fund is that Argentina has the capability to pay, but is refusing to do so, so the hedge fund is justified in pursuing more aggressive measures to recover its investments.

The opinion of the international credit market paints a very concise picture of Argentina's credit worthiness. Argentina is not paying debts it owes.

[LexusInfernus 908]

They are not a fiscal bad boy anymore because a default quite often solves any debt problems a country might have.

Except that when Argentina defaulted, it didn't solve the country's debt problems. At the point of the default, Argentina managed to restructure approximately 76% of it's debt. Over the years, it has restructured up to 93% of it's debt, leaving 7% of the original debt to either be repaid or restructured. One of the claims made by those who hold the 7% of Argentina's original debt is that the country is using Swiss banks to shield cash reserves that could be used to easily cover the remaining 7% of the original debt. The position of the hedge fund is that Argentina has the capability to pay, but is refusing to do so, so the hedge fund is justified in pursuing more aggressive measures to recover its investments.

The opinion of the international credit market paints a very concise picture of Argentina's credit worthiness. Argentina is not paying debts it owes.

It remains a breach of a nations sovereignty by a private entity, which I believe is an extremely troubling move in a certain direction. Private entities should not have such power over sovereign states.

[krbe 193]

No they are not. They defaulted like over 10 years ago and their economic crisis ended somewhere in 2002. They are not a fiscal bad boy anymore because a default quite often solves any debt problems a country might have. The only reason a country like Greece or Italy cant default is because they are part of the Eurozone. Otherwise they would have and it would have solved their problems as well.

No it doesn't. Argentina are still having huge problems due to their "default". No trust left in the market, so financing become a lot more tricky. And what about those doing business in Argentina? The banks? The only reason Greece hasn't stopped serving its debt, is because Ms Merkel insist they continue. Italy is another cup of tea. They've been running the same show for decades, and still managed to survive, while the US are maneuvering on the brink of the financial abyss, though they manage to bring up heaps of internal problems all on their own (bedt ceiling...).

It remains a breach of a nations sovereignty by a private entity, which I believe is an extremely troubling move in a certain direction. Private entities should not have such power over sovereign states.

A private entity has no power whatsoever over Argentina. They merely see the legal framework of Ghana as leverage against the Argentinians. They care not about the ship; the proceeds from and administration of foreclosures are so small you'll never be able to recover the debt. Thus this is only a test of how far the (common law) courts are willing to go in differentiating between a nation's private and public interests.

Previously, it was thought that states enjoyed immunity, whatever business they carried out. A short and crude legal explanation is as follows (forgive me for forgetting the Latin terms):

• The obvious need for protecting foreign government agents and their business from host country abuse had over the centuries led to state immunity, a practice honoured by even mortal enemies (e.g. France and Germany, the Japanese consul's actions in Lithuania in 1940, etc.). This is the reason diplomatic staff can't be sentenced for drunk driving, fined for jaywalking or worse offences. However, these rules orginated in simpler times. Today, diplomatic staff and premisis are still protected against any use of force by the host country (if a fire breaks out in an embassy, the fire department may not put it out unless allowed so by the mission). This is because diplomatic staff and missions are believed to act in a public capacity.
  
• However, if diplomatic staff or missions act in a private capacity -- e.g. lease premises for a trade unit, hire private contractors to refurbish buildings or order air travel tickets -- they are required to comply with relevant rules and regulations, although the facts might be examined differently. This makes sense for both parties, as if they existed in a legal vaccuum where they acted as they please, they'd end up without friends in the end (i.e. they'd have to hire their own nationals from their own country to carry out carpentry, clearly not a sustainable solution).
  
• This being said, while it is possible to obtain a verdict against a foreign country and its agents, they still enjoy their Vienna conventions immunities -- making it impossible to obtain an execution verdict. The three examples above are all real cases recently argued before the courts, where justice has been served, but where justice has been unable to be executed, due to the special statues of foreign governments' agents and missions.
  

And this is the very reason this particular creditor is keen to test the boundaries. It is hard to argue against the fact that someone who lend money, ought to be repaid, but what about these pesky government clients?

[hym 358]

It remains a breach of a nations sovereignty by a private entity, which I believe is an extremely troubling move in a certain direction. Private entities should not have such power over sovereign states.

There is some speculation that this happened because the Obama administration finally approved the hedge fund's repeated requests to seize the vessel to force Argentina's payment. Regardless of whether that actually happened or not, it misses the point of this discussion. Argentina's sovereignty disappeared when the nation defaulted. Sure, the nation can claim sovereignty, but that claim only matters if everyone else agrees to recognize it, or you have the ability to force everyone to recognize it. From the looks of it, Argentina currently lacks both.

[LexusInfernus 908]

It remains a breach of a nations sovereignty by a private entity, which I believe is an extremely troubling move in a certain direction. Private entities should not have such power over sovereign states.

There is some speculation that this happened because the Obama administration finally approved the hedge fund's repeated requests to seize the vessel to force Argentina's payment. Regardless of whether that actually happened or not, it misses the point of this discussion. Argentina's sovereignty disappeared when the nation defaulted. Sure, the nation can claim sovereignty, but that claim only matters if everyone else agrees to recognize it, or you have the ability to force everyone to recognize it. From the looks of it, Argentina currently lacks both.

As far as Im aware Argentina's status as a sovereign state did not get revoked after their default. The UN did not suddenly stopped recognizing them as a nation, so as far as international law is concerned they are a sovereign state. As for enforcing it, that requires the ability to attack and destroy anyone who breaches your sovereignty without your permission, but how exactly do you do that against private enterprises that operate internationally? Shoot a missile at the building where the company has its offices?

This whole thing is an example of private entities being able to breach the sovereignty of states, where before only states where capable of doing that. And when a state does it, its easy to resolve, you go to war and fight it out with a clearly defined enemy. But now? Its impossible to go after these private actors. If this is legal it gives a whole lot of power to corporations and takes a whole lot of power and sovereignty from states. This is how you end up in one of those dystopian cyber punk stories where corporations run the world instead of states.

[hym 358]

It remains a breach of a nations sovereignty by a private entity, which I believe is an extremely troubling move in a certain direction. Private entities should not have such power over sovereign states.

There is some speculation that this happened because the Obama administration finally approved the hedge fund's repeated requests to seize the vessel to force Argentina's payment. Regardless of whether that actually happened or not, it misses the point of this discussion. Argentina's sovereignty disappeared when the nation defaulted. Sure, the nation can claim sovereignty, but that claim only matters if everyone else agrees to recognize it, or you have the ability to force everyone to recognize it. From the looks of it, Argentina currently lacks both.

As far as Im aware Argentina's status as a sovereign state did not get revoked after their default. The UN did not suddenly stopped recognizing them as a nation, so as far as international law is concerned they are a sovereign state.

International law only matters if you agree to follow it or the international community has the capacity to force you to follow it. If neither is the case, the law is utterly meaningless. For this reason, the opinion of the UN is equally meaningless. The UN can say whatever it wants, but all it's doing is blowing air.

As for enforcing it, that requires the ability to attack and destroy anyone who breaches your sovereignty without your permission, but how exactly do you do that against private enterprises that operate internationally? Shoot a missile at the building where the company has its offices?

And this is the problem that Argentina finds itself in. The nation can claim sovereign injury all it wants, but those claims of sovereignty only matter if Argentina can enforce them. At this point, the country has shown no capacity to enforce its own claim to sovereignty, so for all practical purposes, it has none.

This whole thing is an example of private entities being able to breach the sovereignty of states

It's an example of a private entity that wants its money. As far as the hedge fund is concerned, Argentina is nothing more than a delinquent that isn't paying its due debts.

where before only states where capable of doing that.

Corporations have always been capable of seizing a nation's assets. All they needed was someone with the authority to do so and a willingness to carry out the corporation's request. (There is always someone with the authority to do so, and convincing the person to go along with it is usually just a matter of money.)

If this is legal it gives a whole lot of power to corporations and takes a whole lot of power and sovereignty from states.

What this is demonstrating is what we have known for decades. Money is power, and he who has the money has the power. If you owe someone money and you aren't paying it back, that person basically owns you.

Argentina can cry all it wants that this is an offense against its sovereignty, but the reality is that until someone with the power to do so comes to Argentina's defense, Argentina is owned by its creditors, and they will continue to harass the country to get their money. (It's quite telling that no one with the power to do so is coming to Argentina's defense.)

[LexusInfernus 908]

International law only matters if you agree to follow it or the international community has the capacity to force you to follow it. If neither is the case, the law is utterly meaningless. For this reason, the opinion of the UN is equally meaningless. The UN can say whatever it wants, but all it's doing is blowing air.

While its true that no one can actually enforce international law, its generally a bad idea to just disregard international law, especially if you are technically a subject to it. And again, the default did nothing to change the sovereign status of Argentina. Argentina is quite capable of asserting itself in regard to other countries, just not private entities like hedge funds.

And this is the problem that Argentina finds itself in. The nation can claim sovereign injury all it wants, but those claims of sovereignty only matter if Argentina can enforce them. At this point, the country has shown no capacity to enforce its own claim to sovereignty, so for all practical purposes, it has none.

Say this happened to America, and the hedgefund was located in China instead of New York. What would America do? Right, it would be powerless as well. It could rage against the poor African nation that prevents the US ship from leaving, but technically this country has nothing to do with it. It are the courts that ruled this, not the government. Going to war with them wouldnt solve anything. Then go after the hedgefund? How? Its based in China, attacking it in any way would be breaching Chinas sovereignty which likely results in war with China.

Again, you cant defend yourself against actors that operate on a global level, but are not subject to the same rules and limitations as nations. And more importantly, you cant interact with them in the same way as you can with countries. Not just Argentina, the US would face the same problem.

  Edited October 29, 2012 by LexusInfernus  

[hym 358]

Argentina has been ordered to repay the outstanding debts. It would seem that a second default might be on the horizon.