Originally Posted by
orca
I agree that it was a statement of intent - I am not so keen to call it capability
No, I suggest 'intent' could have been demonstrated with 'show of force' by a flight across down town BA.
'Capability' did exactly what Navaleye said, it demonstrated 'reach'.
That being said I don't think it demonstrated an ability to strike the mainland in strength.
"It is not HMG's policy to confirm or deny . . . "
There was a similar issue in 1964-65 in Confrontation. Admittedly this was only 19 years after first use and by 1982 the world had moved on a little when it came to sabre rattling.
There is some evidence to believe that Indonesia did not discount the threat from nuclear armed V-bombers. Who would pit just 4 Vulcans against an archipeligo of some 3000 miles in extent.
Similarly could Argentina discount a tactical nuke? You cannot apply our logic and thought processes to another culture. Remember also that they were not privvy to the AAR Plan. Even in 1982 I suspect that many people would have credited the Vulcan with a far greater range capability than it actually possessed.
Regarding the hole on the edge of the runway, I read somewhere that the Arg 'removed' the bomb crater spoil at night and replaced it come the dawn thus preserving an appearance of a crippled runway.
I have just ordered a copy of
Air War South Atlantic Price and Ethell specialise in presenting a balanced opponents view although I suspect they may not throw any light on this matter.
due to there being no point sweeping for the strikers, Blackbuck, attrition or fuel load?
If I read your idea of 'sweeping' correctly it would have been no more than a vague chance of engagement in a very lean target environment.
The only way to have engaged subsequent BB sorties successfully would have been either costly CAP or timely intelligence and some form of radar controlled intercept. The low and practically random sortie rate would have presented a very low chance of a successful engagement.