Nukes taken to Falklands in 1982
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nukes taken to Falklands in 1982
From BBC News
"The MOD has revealed that ships sent to the Falklands in 1982 war were carrying Nuclear warheads. More soon"
talk about walk softly but carry a big stick.
"The MOD has revealed that ships sent to the Falklands in 1982 war were carrying Nuclear warheads. More soon"
talk about walk softly but carry a big stick.
Pprune Voyeur
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: hampshire
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In those days the Navy was geared towards closing Iceland/Faeroes gap to Soviet subs, in the event the the balloon went up. It was fairly routine (I believe) for FF/DD and carriers to carry nuke depth charges to counter this threat. According to the news stories I heard, they made an early decision to unload the nukes, as I suppose it would of been very difficult, politically speaking, to be the first country since 1945 to use nuclear weapons, especially as our existence was not threatened. The report said that the Nukes were unloaded at sea, so I assume they were taken off by RAS. The reason it came to light was that some of containers were damaged during the transfer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3295855.stmr.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3295855.stmr.
Last edited by cumulus; 8th Dec 2003 at 00:09.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bit of a non event then, now likely to be blown up into a full scale diplomatic incident by the press.
still ...... welcome to the Malvinas ocean trench, formally known as the falkland islands, bathe in the unique warm arctic waters belived to be from deep ocean vents, or decaying radioactivity. Try a spot of night swimming no danger from sharks its easy to spot them glowing a mile off.
still ...... welcome to the Malvinas ocean trench, formally known as the falkland islands, bathe in the unique warm arctic waters belived to be from deep ocean vents, or decaying radioactivity. Try a spot of night swimming no danger from sharks its easy to spot them glowing a mile off.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a Reuters Link: - The Argentine Govt's statement:
mmmmm - unlike illegaly invading anothers' territory!
I have never eaten Corned beef since!
B-L
"This incident could have had huge consequences for the inhabitants, natural resources and environment of the region," the statement read. "It is unacceptable to try and justify it ... during an operation aimed at preserving a colony in the Southern Atlantic."
I have never eaten Corned beef since!
B-L
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the Argies had a little more respect for a nuclear armed nation maybe they would not have dared to invade in the first place.
Those non-nuclear nations who try to beat the bigger boys with little sticks ought to realise the retribution they might precipitate.
Anyone for microwaved corned beef?
Those non-nuclear nations who try to beat the bigger boys with little sticks ought to realise the retribution they might precipitate.
Anyone for microwaved corned beef?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 1,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As already pointed out - carriage of nucleur weapons then was SOP.
Can't see the big issue myself - if you are fighting a war there is no halfway house.
You do what is required, to win - otherwise there is no point getting involved.
I don't think for a minute we would of deployed them, the normal conventional depth charges and accoustic torpedoes would have been more than adequate for the diesel electrics that the Argentinian Navy operated then............
Arc
Can't see the big issue myself - if you are fighting a war there is no halfway house.
You do what is required, to win - otherwise there is no point getting involved.
I don't think for a minute we would of deployed them, the normal conventional depth charges and accoustic torpedoes would have been more than adequate for the diesel electrics that the Argentinian Navy operated then............
Arc
Player of Games
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Flatland
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everyone is a little down on 'coastal' diesel-electric type
subs...but in a non-time limited anti-surface role such as
the Falklands I would prefer to use a modern diesel to a
nuclear propelled HK.
The nuclear plant provides real advantages in deployment
and speed but the submarine itself is far larger and
inherently noiser than a 'littoral defense' type diesel
sub.
My two pennyworth,
-- Andrew
subs...but in a non-time limited anti-surface role such as
the Falklands I would prefer to use a modern diesel to a
nuclear propelled HK.
The nuclear plant provides real advantages in deployment
and speed but the submarine itself is far larger and
inherently noiser than a 'littoral defense' type diesel
sub.
My two pennyworth,
-- Andrew
Pprune Voyeur
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: hampshire
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the main point was that they expected to lose ships, and wanted to avoid the aggro of either having a weapon damaged during attack on the ship, or having to recover weapons from ships that had been lost, especially if they had been at some depth. Why have the extra risk, if you are not going to use them anyway? quiet newsday, methinks.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW1
You don't seriously expect to get an answer to your allegations concerning the existence of nuclear weapons do you ?? Anyone posting an answer to your suggestion would attract the attentions of certain security organisations and probably end up in the dock.........
BATS
You don't seriously expect to get an answer to your allegations concerning the existence of nuclear weapons do you ?? Anyone posting an answer to your suggestion would attract the attentions of certain security organisations and probably end up in the dock.........
BATS
Bit of a nonstory this? It's not as if nuclear depth charges would have had any possible use in the Flands - a bit excessive looking for the San Luis, no? Mind you, everyone will say "My God! Nukes!" conjuring up visions of the heroic Lynx pounding towards Buenos Aires rather slowly. Given that they were standard nato issue at the time, I assume the ships diverted from SpringTrain would have had them aboard and not had the opportunity to unload.
Mind you, a sinking with one aboard would have been deeply em******ating.
Mind you, a sinking with one aboard would have been deeply em******ating.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Someone's fishing here, and not for Haddock either. Use your heads guys and neither confirm nor deny. This thread is a CND gift - whatever anyone says they will twist it like a twisty-turny thing, to paraphrase Baldrick. Moderators should consider removing it
Can't see them using NDB's as the WE177c (I think that was the model) was withdrawn some time ago.
Can't see the tactical utility in them today anyway, particulalry in litoral ops against diesel/electric subs due to comtamination and risk of fallout from shallow detonations.
So unless we have acquired some on a lend/lease scheme fom the septics I can't see it myself.
(The above is purely specualtion on my part and is based on information openly published in the Beano)
Can't see the tactical utility in them today anyway, particulalry in litoral ops against diesel/electric subs due to comtamination and risk of fallout from shallow detonations.
So unless we have acquired some on a lend/lease scheme fom the septics I can't see it myself.
(The above is purely specualtion on my part and is based on information openly published in the Beano)
