"Would the British have used nukes in the Falklands War?" Topic

i have been always told by argies that no matter that they lost, it was better than winning because the brits had nukes in their carrier vehicles and would had nuked an argie city.
Although god knows that uk is the birthplace of everything thats evil and foul in this world (well, at least the spanish god surely thinks that way), i find hard to believe it. The us didnīt use them in vietnam, i canīt see the british nuking a city for a few islands, in the worst ofthe cold war, almost forty years after nagasaki and hiroshima, when everybody had a clear picture of the effects of a nuclear attack.

If you need to ask?

No, The UK would not have used its Nuclear Weapons on an Argentinian City if we had lost the Falklands.

Pat

Gosh that ridiculous myth still doing the rounds in Argentina?

UK is the birthplace of all that is evil and foul according to the Spanish?

Not sure my Step-father from Barcelona would agree with you as he lives in Surrey.

Though we did give the world the Krankies so its partly true I guess… Still not as evil as Ireland though. They spawned Graham Norton.

No, they were keeping them in reserve for another Spanish attempt on Gibraltar or Marbella, I forget which.

Wait a minute, you did give us the Beckhams!!!!!!!!!

I seriously doubt it.

Why bother, when you can launch a world of hurt with conventional weapons, with relative impunity.

After the Black Buck Raids on the Falklands, by the Vulcans, many of the Mirages were kept back to guard the Argentine mainland.

No doubt, the Argentine leadership stayed awake a lot of nights wondering if, and when they might be hit.

"Wait a minute, you did give us the Beckhams!!!!!!!!!"

Hey… You took them. Dont blame us for that!

And we dont want them back thanks. And we dont want the ever spawning Kardasian hivemind.

The British would be far too polite to nuke an enemy city no matter how much bad form the other side had displayed.

Of course if it meant gaining access to the regional oil rights they might give it a momentary thought or two….over tea and scones!

"and would had nuked an argie city"

If they actually believed that they wouldn't have invaded in the first place.

Nuclear deterrance worked really well there didn't it.

Bit of a gamble really as if the Warpac had attacked in 1982, NATO would have had to initiate the use of nuclear weapons as our conventional forces were too weak to stop them. If we were ever going to push the button, it was the early 80s (or the late 50s/early 60s).

No, not in a million years.

I bet that'll be the script for Mel's next movie…..:)

If the task force had been defeated then there would have been a political crisis in the Uk, swiftly followed by a general election sans Maggie.
Whoever won that would have agreed a truce, leaving the islands in Argentinian hands.
(and inreasing the power of Galtieri's junta. A facet those in Buenos Ayres do not seem to recognise)

The more justifiable causus belli for a British nuclear strike on Argentina took place in 1986 not 1982. I wonder if the 'hand of God' could have deflected a Polaris missile?

Never mind, as someone whose footballing allegiances lie a little to the north of Argentina I'm pleased to say that 1986 World Cup was just about the last time Argentina hoisted a major piece of silverware. Even the two Copa America wins in the early 'nineties were still under the old format where everybody sent their B teams so as not to disrupt their domestic seasons.

No, we are saving them for New York and SF…

Oooops sorry, no, meant Moscow and Vladivostock…

I can't decide whether that's more offensive or hilarious. No, no and thrice no; a thought as ridiculous as it is horrific.

Still not as evil as Ireland though. They spawned Graham Norton.

yes, but you put him om tv continously….

Jedward is our new terror weapon..

Besides, a British nuclear sub or two would be able to blockade the Argentine and Falkland coasts pretty effectively without using nukes.

Incidentally, the carriers didn't carry nukes – all British nukes are on subs.

sorry, the bit about the " spanish god…" was ironic, as i am spanish. The bit about uk being the birthplace…. That was tru…,er, that was ironic, too.
No, i couldnīt believe it the first time i heard it, but its still a strong myth here in spain, at least the part about the cv carrying the weapons.

"Incidentally, the carriers didn't carry nukes – all British nukes are on subs"

All the TF ships deployed with their standard NATO loadout of nuclear depth charges. Just because they were on their way to the South Atlantic didn't mean the Russians were going to pack up and go home. People seem to forget how tense the early 80s were.

Broadsword, Brilliant, Coventry and Sheffield offloaded their weapons onto Hermes & Invincible, which left the carriers with 65% of the entire naval nuclear payload (excluding Polaris). They were we177a weapons with a yield of between 0.5 and 10kt. The Sea Harriers could deliver them as well.

Whether they actually entered the operational area still nuked up is matter of some debate. The NATO weapons were returned to the UK on RFA Fort Austin and RFA Resource in summer 1982.

"Jedward is our new terror weapon.."

You forgot the Wogan of Mass Destruction.

Actually in Jedwards defence, my son was in Tallaght Childrens Hospital just before Xmas for an operation and Jedward visited.

To be fair to them, and I find them utterly annoying, they really cheered the kids up and spent the morning bringing a bit of cheer to the kids in hospital around Xmas.

So some under 10s seem to like them…

Would the British have nuked a city in Argentina ? Obviously not, the Americans would never have let us even if the UK had wanted to make itself the most hated and vilified nation on the surface of the earth.

Just plain stupid idea.

Jedward are not suppossed to be entertaining to 40 year old wargamers. Let the kids have their fun.

(a) Argentina couldn't possibly have won.
(b) Really, nuking an Argentine city? There must be something in the water wherever the people who think this live.
-Kle.

It's just an old soldier's excuse for having performed poorly on the field of battle.

Why go nuclear when British servicemen (inc. RAF and RN) can do the job?

Why go nuclear when British servicemen (inc. RAF and RN) can do the job?

Well I suppose you could point out that using nukes would have won the war with most likely no British casulities and fixed so that Argentina wouldn't be re-invading any time in the next couplre of hundred years.

On the other hand our reputation as a country would be shot and most likely our best friends in the world today would be Iran ……….

nuked an argie city

Ludicrous notion.

Doug

Of course nukes would not have been used: it would have been unconscionable. If the task force had hit real set-backs then another attempt would have been made. I remember there was real feeling on the UK at the time: the Argentines had managed to unite the whole country really rather effectively.

Surely this old rumour is just another example of Argentinian propaganda. They attempt to side-step the UN treaty on the rights of self-determination, or perhaps be excused it. The current US government is a little confused on this one also: they call for negotiations. 99+% of the population living there are happy with things as they are (exercising their right to self-determination which the USA apparently supports) so what is there to negotiate?

I vaguely remember reading that the British Cabinet discussed the option and rejected it unanimously.

I do not believe there was any circumstance short of the first use by Argentina in which the UK would nuke a city.

I suspect its a myth the "Argies" like to spread to make themselves feel better about being utterly humiliated in a ludicrous venture.

Jaz
6sided.net – Join 200+ Wargaming Bloggers – Start Your Blog Today!

Losing the Falklands would not have been an existential threat. That's what them there nukes are for. After all, they did not nuke the US after Yorktown, did they?

I hope a Yank can join this parochial discussion.

They may be biding their time John.

Nukes? No.
But I do blame them for the Spice Girls.

It will be interesting to see who uses nukes next and where and why. Another interesting question is whether, after the inevitable outrage, their use becomes more acceptable, or less with more frequent use.

Well I suppose you could point out that using nukes would have won the war with most likely no British casualities

Assuming you could evacuate the civilians first.

…and fixed so that Argentina wouldn't be re-invading any time in the next couplre of hundred years.

Or anyone.

Then it would be attack of the mutant penguins.

I am somewhat surprised about the US ambivalence on the Falklands, after all if Argentina got them back, they are well on the way to becoming another oil state like Venezuala which I don't see as being in the US's interest.

In 1982 I believe the RAF still had its nuclear ordinance, so with Vulcans in range, pick 10 cities to lose… If Britain launched it wouldn't be just one…

Geoff I'm assuming we'd nuke the mainland rather than the islands which would be a bit counter preductive. First nuke somewhere like Santa fa then "you've got 48 hours to leave the islands or Buenos Aires is next" type of ultamatium (in the style of a bond baddie)

I should point out I don't think we should have used nuclear weapons (not that we did) just that I could envisage it as way to win a war , against a non nuclear power,with no loss of life to us.

I believe it was also seriously considered strapping a few nukes on to penquins and training them to head to Argie naval bases……..

Couple of nukes on teh mainland, and the islands would have been the only place left to go :-)

I'm still on the penguins… there's mileage there.

If you want to destroy military targets with nuclear weapons, it is rather more sensible to deliver them with aircraft, artillery or missiles than penguins. The main Argentinian naval and airbases would have been reasonable nuclear targets.

"In 1982 I believe the RAF still had its nuclear ordinance, so with Vulcans in range"

The Vulcan raids were very hard to organise and support logistically, too risky for a nuclear strike at that range. A shower of warheads delivered via Polaris was somewhat easier to arrange.

There is little point in nuking a city anyway, it is the strategic systems you are after – nuclear facilities, c3 centres, military facilities then transport, power, chemicals and steel. Many of of these happen to be located in or near cities, but that is called 'collateral damage'.

If you just wanted to frighten them rather than destroy the entire country, then an airburst out at sea. But as indicated above, first use of nuclear weapons is not an acceptable use of force in self defence unless threatened with extinction. It wasn't at the time and it isn't now, which is why the Argentinians invaded. They knew they weren't going to get nuked over a few sheep.

You are all forgetting that the penguins are not signatories to the NPT.

Maybe Spanish does not come easily to the beaked ones in Tuxedos.

Maybe they don't like inflationary currencies.

Maybe they just want to hit the trigger.

Well you have asked for an Americans opinion and here it is ..
WE all think the spice girl Jerrie( or whatever her name was )was hot but then she had a baby ….We never doubted The UKs ability to beat a small 3rd world latin country…
Never even thought the UK would use Nukes against Argentina Up untill hostilities actualy began we where in fact convinced and some may have hoped you where going to nuke Philly as you still held a grudge over that 17th and 18th Century unpleasantness.We love the UK they are family and if they want to beat up south America we are there you don't mess with our family …despite Simon C and Paula abdul we are no closer to understanding anything the UK says.but the IRON lady was HOT when maggie said biotch those are our islands the world took heed ….so there

The Nuke Britain launched at Argentina was casting Jonathan Pryce as Juan Peron in the godawful movie version of Evita…

YouTube link

In 1982 I think we were saving our nukes for the big boys….

I think pretty much everyone in the Nuclear Club has been involved in a testy and heavily contested up close and personal war, and didn't resort to their ultimate deterrent. Because if they did, it wouldn't be ultimate, and not much of a deterrent.

I've heard rumours that the team of Game for a Laugh were on standby for a HALO insertion into BA if things got sticky, thankfully it never came to that…

Gary

"I bet that'll be the script for Mel's next movie"

An excuse for giant explosions with a loose fitting background story? Clearly, we're talking a Michael Bay film.

If you want to destroy military targets with nuclear weapons, it is rather more sensible to deliver them with aircraft, artillery or missiles than penguins. The main Argentinian naval and airbases would have been reasonable nuclear targets.<q/>

quote of the year I think

I suspect its a myth the "Argies" like to spread to make themselves feel better about being utterly humiliated in a ludicrous venture.

-----------
'Argies' That sounds a bit too much like The Sun. Some Argentineans might think that – just as some Brits think that anyone with a dark skin and beard is a potential terrorist etc. Obviously not the 4 BA uni graudates who served in the Falklands and later wrote to Maj Gen Moore to thank him for their country's defeat as it brought the junta down

Would the British have used nukes in the Falklands War?

No. Not in any circumstances. The UK Government did not even sanction the bombing of air bases on the Argentine mainland or of the carrier Veinticinco de Mayo (formerly HMS Venerable) while she was in port.

Any kind of attack on Argentina might have been seen as an act of war and, as I recall, the UK Government were very keen to stress at the time that there was no state of war between the UK and Argentina.