Warfares moved on a lot since the 1970's (slight oxymoron I suppose if you'll forgive me it), also the US was still reeling in terms of its post Vietnam humiliation and was probably seen as being far from impregnable. I also think it would be useful to remember that the Soviet Union existed too, who were effectively able to offer a degree of protection to smaller nations if they were allied with them, and the Americans were that litle bit more wary of charging round the globe unchallenged as they do today.
On the subject of contemporary warfare, I've suspected for some time that destroyers and frigates are essentially obsolete, this whole charade just proves it to my mind. One of my first considerations was just what was HMS Cornwall doing in allowing its crew to be captured by a patrol of 'boghammers'? The more I considered it though, the more I came to realise they might have had little choice, which again only serves to underline how impotent they are.
A confrontation could easily have led to the ship being sunk, with a much greater loss of live and humiliation, (unless the US, 5th fleet were able to put up a sufficient air umbrella quick enough). Their whereabouts I suspect was crucial in this.
I couldn't help seeing some potential similarities with the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and we all know where that eventually led (although in that case the Americans orchestrated a non-confrontation to justify their follow up action, as it too revolved around maritime confusion, and wanton mis-reporting). At the moment know one's really been pushed into a corner so far that any kind of escalation might have precipitated
I can also see a bit of a parallel with Pan Am 103 too, where despite having nothing to do with the bombing, Libya was forced to not only acknowledge their role, but to pay compensation as well. On the one hand we're quite prepared to force others into saying sorry when they're guilty of nothing relating to an incident, but come over all indignant when the possibility of us being asked to do the same exists. I think on balance I'd say sorry, even if I didn't mean a word of it, get my people back, and then in conjunction with the US take a slightly more robust approach towards the rules of engagement. At the very least I'd want to have a 'sod off' super carrier in close attendence, rather than relying on a pretty inert frigate, which in this case is essentially an anti-submarine ship anyway
