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

Ah, the Ukrainians are classics at that game.

(I'm doing the opposite – my wife is swotting her Life in the UK for the privilege of paying the £851.00 GBP towards her British citizenship instead)

No, absolutely not. However, the Argentine government stated at the time that he was leaving the 'Malvinas' as a protest, which he patently was not.

Although he did allegedly give an opinion that: "Although his father fought in the war for the British side, he thinks the islands, called the Malvinas in Spanish, should be ruled by the South American country."

I think that might have happened when Clinton started referring to the Falkland Islands as 'Las Malvinas' and suggesting that we reach a 'negotiated settlement' with the Argentinans.

Repeat after me: The US Secretary of State is just a government functionary. The position has very little real power of it's own…

How would you like it if we started urging you to reach a negotiated settlement with Mexico over US-Occupied Texas or with Cuba over Guantanamo?

I'm going to go with "uproarious laughter".

Even if Hillary got to make US policy by herself (she doesn't), even if the US wanted the UK to give the Falklands to Argentina (we don't), we aren't about to try and make you do it. Really.

Really, really.

Argentina is a US ally, but the UK is our closest and most important ally. Argentina doesn't really appear on peoples' radar over here, most of us probably couldn't find it on a map. Any US favoritism towards Argentina vis-a-vis the UK is imaginary at best, and just a bunch of hot air at worst. It is nothing to worry about.
-Kle.

There's a sizeable community of British expats and people of British ancestry in Argentina, many of whom enjoy dual citizenship. Cricket, rugby and polo clubs, even schools that ape the public school system and teach in English.

There's a largeish Welsh speaking community in Trelew, no doubt drawn there by the abundance of sheep.

I try not to go down that route… There's a sizeable Polish population in Southampton but I doubt the other residents would opt for dual nationality :-)

Lots of opinion on this thread, relatively little citation of primary sources.

I should like now to cite a primary source, from the wall in the men's toilets in Cornwall House, the University of Exeter, in April (or it might have been May) 1982. A graffitti artist had drawn a picture of a mushroom could, together with the slogan "Campaign for Dayglo Dagos".

So someone had obviously considered the nuclear option.

All the best,

John.

There you go, the perfect defence for any public figure caught loitering in a gents' toilet.

'No, officer I was merely looking for a citation to quote and a way of measuring public opinion on the topic.'

Hopefully it was all in the pursuit of academic rigour John.

;-)

If only George Michael had thought to use that defence.

As said Britain would never have used nukes (probably) but it goes to show that having a nuclear deterrent isn't much of a deterrent from countries making war against you??

It does make you wonder what it is they are deterring :-)

Other countries nukes – someone is going to have to use one in response to a minor irritation before they start deterring such irritations.

Klebert – when a US Government spokeperson starts making speeches on the Falklands, we tend to assume she's not doing so without clearence from the people who DO form policy.

Our concern comes from US inaction in the face of concerted action form the Latin americans.

Though i guess we could offer to throw you off Diego Garcia if you acted up too much :)

There's a largeish Welsh speaking community in Trelew, no doubt drawn there by the abundance of sheep.

-------------
well actually religious freedom – its only North Walians who worry sheep!

Repeat after me: The US Secretary of State is just a government functionary. The position has very little real power of it's own…

Aside from being, what, 4 heartbeats from the presidency?

"Our concern comes from US inaction in the face of concerted action form the Latin americans."

What concerted action? Three countries banned entry of boats flying the flag of the Falklnds. None of them give give a hoot if the same boat is carrying a Red Ensign or the Liberian flag.

I wouldn't worry too much about Americans anyway, their influence is its lowest point in South America for 200 years.

What concerted action? Three countries banned entry of boats flying the flag of the Falklnds. None of them give give a hoot if the same boat is carrying a Red Ensign or the Liberian flag.

Not entirely true; any merchant dealing with the Falklands is subjected to enough "entirely routine safety inspections" that they tend to avoid the hassle now; effectively there's a partial blockade in place, and shortages, particularly of fresh produce, are rife as a consequence.

As a Texan I would remind you that Texas was a sovereign nation.We did not join the U.S.A they joined us .We have our own energy sources and reserves and a separate power grid from the rest of the USA. We would have changed all the letterheads but being a fiscally responsible State we felt changing everything to the United States of Texas was a frivolous expense. Further more The Mexicans that where born here wisely never left indeed and those that er um visit repeatedly are always welcome.We reserve the right to arm our aquatic wildlife with whatever weapons we deem are appropriate to the threat , whats good enuf for our pickem up trucks are certainly good enuf for our aquatic friends as well….Mikey

It's been stated – from some unusually knowledgable sources – that a Resolution-class SSBN was deployed southwards during the Falklands Conflict, probably in the vicinity of Ascension Island. The MOD was pressed by the Labour Party to comment and (against normal policy about not commenting on submarines generally and the Strategic Deterrent in particular) they responded, stating that this was untrue.

One version that I heard was that the Polaris boat was backing up the SSNs, adopting a hunter-killer role. I suspect it would be quite good at that job but risking it seems incredibly far-fetched. Not as far-fetched as deploying within Polaris missile range of Argentina though, since SSBNs are generally too innacurate to do anything but citybust. These days, Sub-Strategic Trident might do a good job against naval forces at sea, air bases or other non-civilian targets but in 1982 the UK didn't have pin-point accuracy available.

In short, there may possibly have been some very subtle nuclear sabre-rattling but I can't imagine any real intent on the part of the UK to use ballistic nuclear weapons. Even nuclear depth bombs would have been too extreme to consider, although if we'd lost a carrier to submarine attack I can imagine political pressure being brought to bear on the task force commander!

With a 2500 mile range the sdub wouldn't have needed to be south of the Equator to take out BA. Transparent sabre rattling.