RN took Nukes to the Falklands???
Thread Starter
RN took Nukes to the Falklands???
This is
LONDON
28/06/05 - News section
UK took nuclear arms to Falklands
Royal Navy ships sent to the Falklands in the 1982 war were carrying nuclear weapons, the official history of the conflict has revealed.
The book's author, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, said there was never any intention to use the nuclear depth charges against the Argentinian navy, but it proved impossible to remove the arms from the ships before the dispatch of the Task Force to retake the islands.
Prof Freedman's two-volume history is the result of eight years of research, including access to secret Whitehall files and military communications.
In it, he reveals the anger of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the failure of her close ally, US President Ronald Reagan, to give her his full support against the military junta ruling Argentina.
He says that the British Government was taken almost completely by surprise by the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, which the South American nation has long claimed as its own.
And he rejects claims - publicised most prominently by former Labour MP Tam Dalyell - that the sinking of the Argentine warship the General Belgrano at the cost of hundreds of lives was a political move designed to scupper a possible peace deal.
Prof Freedman, the professor of war studies at King's College, London, said he was "rather surprised" to find proof in official papers that the British fleet included nuclear-armed ships.
"A number of ships had come from exercises off Gibraltar and had the normal complement of nuclear depth charges that British ships took with them at the time, and they didn't really have a good way of taking them off," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
"The Government was desperate to get them away from the Task Force, but the delays that this would have caused at a time when they were trying to make the biggest diplomatic impact meant they decided they had better take them and get them off later.
"They put them in the safest places possible. There was no intention to use them, but they certainly went."
LONDON
28/06/05 - News section
UK took nuclear arms to Falklands
Royal Navy ships sent to the Falklands in the 1982 war were carrying nuclear weapons, the official history of the conflict has revealed.
The book's author, Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, said there was never any intention to use the nuclear depth charges against the Argentinian navy, but it proved impossible to remove the arms from the ships before the dispatch of the Task Force to retake the islands.
Prof Freedman's two-volume history is the result of eight years of research, including access to secret Whitehall files and military communications.
In it, he reveals the anger of then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the failure of her close ally, US President Ronald Reagan, to give her his full support against the military junta ruling Argentina.
He says that the British Government was taken almost completely by surprise by the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, which the South American nation has long claimed as its own.
And he rejects claims - publicised most prominently by former Labour MP Tam Dalyell - that the sinking of the Argentine warship the General Belgrano at the cost of hundreds of lives was a political move designed to scupper a possible peace deal.
Prof Freedman, the professor of war studies at King's College, London, said he was "rather surprised" to find proof in official papers that the British fleet included nuclear-armed ships.
"A number of ships had come from exercises off Gibraltar and had the normal complement of nuclear depth charges that British ships took with them at the time, and they didn't really have a good way of taking them off," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.
"The Government was desperate to get them away from the Task Force, but the delays that this would have caused at a time when they were trying to make the biggest diplomatic impact meant they decided they had better take them and get them off later.
"They put them in the safest places possible. There was no intention to use them, but they certainly went."
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Can't imagine why the Prof is surprised - as he says, they were part of a normal weapons inventory at the time.
I will go through my father's notes and see whether it was discussed in his area. He was closely involved at the time.
I will go through my father's notes and see whether it was discussed in his area. He was closely involved at the time.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
He was probably surprised because it was, and remains, UK Government policy never to confirm nor deny anything to do with the deployment of nuclear weapons.
Thread Starter
What makes me wonder about this...if there were no plans to use them...why risk losing them in conventional combat. It would seem the risk to loss and all that entails would suggest offloading the things prior to departure would be the better of choices....it could not have been that complicated a chore....it is not like the RN has millions of the things.
Were any lost when the Sheffield and Conventry were sunk? Working off my memory here....right ships?
Were any lost when the Sheffield and Conventry were sunk? Working off my memory here....right ships?
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Strasbourg and hotter places
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sasless
Everyone knows there were no WMD !
Right or wrong, I hardly think the Prof's "research" will have unearthed any concrete evidence.
Typical surmise, speculation and a safe bet because who's going to confirm or deny ? Just a tired old duffer trying to earn a few bucks from an old formula. Take a popular conspiracy theory, add 8 years of research, write an official looking thesis and rely totally on the fact that HMG will never comment.
Anyway, Buenos Aires is still there ain't it ?
Everyone knows there were no WMD !
Right or wrong, I hardly think the Prof's "research" will have unearthed any concrete evidence.
Typical surmise, speculation and a safe bet because who's going to confirm or deny ? Just a tired old duffer trying to earn a few bucks from an old formula. Take a popular conspiracy theory, add 8 years of research, write an official looking thesis and rely totally on the fact that HMG will never comment.
Anyway, Buenos Aires is still there ain't it ?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: In the sun
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P 101
You are exposing a significant lack of knowledge, the weapons in discussion are not of power projection AKA Trident/TLAM etc but reasonably dumb weapons with a flippin big bang, of course Buenos Aires is still there, I don't believe we had a missile capable of hitting it in 1982!!
You are exposing a significant lack of knowledge, the weapons in discussion are not of power projection AKA Trident/TLAM etc but reasonably dumb weapons with a flippin big bang, of course Buenos Aires is still there, I don't believe we had a missile capable of hitting it in 1982!!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: In a Cockpit near you
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was working in a factory earlier this summer after finishing uni, and was talking to one of the managers about my application into the RN. He informed me that he served with HMS Invincible in the conflict in '82. During our Discussion, he said that Invincible had one night been entrusted with some Nuclear weapons. Thought it might have just been an exaggeration of the truth, but this suggests otherwise. This would therefore give support to the notion that they were not to be used would it not, as as far as i am aware Air Craft carriers do not have the capability to launch such a device unless it was strapped to an FRS/1?
Regards to all ....
P.S watched the coverage of T200 earlier to day. Very impressive, just what the Navy needs in terms of coverage!!
FLY NAVY!!
Regards to all ....
P.S watched the coverage of T200 earlier to day. Very impressive, just what the Navy needs in terms of coverage!!
FLY NAVY!!
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 50
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dancing Bear - Polaris could have hit whatever part of this Earth we wanted it to. Add that to the fact that we managed to bomb the Falklands, just to prove we could bomb Buenos Aires if we wanted to ...
Nick - depth charges. Probably to be dropped from a helicopter, that would be the norm now. Taken out of service towards the end of the 1990s.
Pilgrim - it's the official history, probably got some good access to the unclassified/declassified material. They do confirm certain things - like that no V bomber ever took off with a Bomb on board (although that may be a bluff...).
Nick - depth charges. Probably to be dropped from a helicopter, that would be the norm now. Taken out of service towards the end of the 1990s.
Pilgrim - it's the official history, probably got some good access to the unclassified/declassified material. They do confirm certain things - like that no V bomber ever took off with a Bomb on board (although that may be a bluff...).
"just to prove we could bomb Buenos Aires if we wanted to ..."
A stretch to say that you could go down town BA because you could drop some on the Malvinas.
Can you provide some supporting evidence or is it your opinion?
A stretch to say that you could go down town BA because you could drop some on the Malvinas.
Can you provide some supporting evidence or is it your opinion?
Range is not what I contemplating. Ability to make it to BA is more along the lines. Especially so after the psychological damage the black buck raids caused. This caused many more AD assets to be home based to defend mainland cities.
Ah, but if they'd bombed BA they'd have had support from ghostly assets in Chile.
Dunno if they lost any WE177s on the ships that went down, but I remember reading recently that they did damage - or lose - WE177 transit containers.
"The UK dumped a boadload of WE177 Type C (600lb, Estimated yield - 10Kt. Variable yield fission weapon) free fall bombs (see photo) somewhere off the Falklands. Early in December Le Monde reported: Londres avait envoyé des armes nucléaires aux Malouines
Translated into Anglo-American, the government of Margret Thatcher sent tactical nuclear weapons (free-fall bombs, the WE177) with the invasion force, and shuffled them about, causing seven weapons containers to become damaged under unstated circumstances, and leaving open the possibility that one or more weapons containers were lost when the destroyer Sheffield was sunk after being engaged by an Exocet (surface-to-surface) missile."
AND
"Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits
Rob Evans and David Leigh
Saturday December 6, 2003
The Guardian
The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.
The disclosure came as the government was forced to concede - after a long-running campaign by the Guardian - that seven nuclear weapons containers were damaged during a series of wartime accidents.
But many of the details of these accidents are still being kept secret by the MoD.
Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ministry also refused to say whether any nuclear depth charges were on board HMS Sheffield, which was sunk during the war.
The MoD's admission confirms persistent rumours that the taskforce which recaptured the islands in 1982 was equipped with nuclear weapons.
The ministry insisted that there was never any intention to use the weapons during the war and that their presence did not break any disarmament treaties. But the admission has provoked concern from the Argentinian government. The Argentinian defence minister, Jose Pampuro, said he was worried in case the accidents had spread radioactivity and he wanted assurances from the MoD.
According to the limited information released by the MoD, the nuclear depth charges were already on board unnamed ships in the taskforce when it sailed to the South Atlantic at the outbreak of the war.
"A decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," said an MoD spokesman.
Seven containers were damaged "in some way" when they were transporting the weapons on to other ships.
The MoD claims that none of the actual weapons was damaged and that "in what was considered the worst case, a container sustained severe distortion to a door housing".
The MoD finally released information concerning the accidents after a six-year battle fought by the Guardian under the open government code.
After the MoD had blocked a request for information, the parliamentary ombudsman criticised the ministry and ordered it to publish a list of 20 accidents and mishaps involving nuclear weapons between 1960 and 1991.
But despite the ombudsman's critical verdict this year, the MoD concealed the Falklands accidents, and has only divulged their existence after further pressure from the Guardian.
Last night's admission by the MoD fails to clear up the most controversial allegation: that the nuclear weapons were sunk along the HMS Sheffield after the ship was hit by an Exocet a month into the war. The crippled ship was towed for six days until it sank.
Faced with the ombudsman's refusal to support the MoD's policy of secrecy, the department yesterday opted for damage limitation, putting out a statement to all media in the traditional slot for unwelcome news: late on a Friday afternoon.
The MoD said the transfers of the WE177 depth charges took place at various times during April, May and June 1982, "well away from other sea-going traffic, and the weapons were held in ships with the best-protected magazines before being returned to Britain".
The MoD insisted that the nuclear weapons never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland islands or any South American country.
The government has always said there was never any question of resorting to the use of nuclear weapons in the dispute.
The MoD said it was routine practice for British naval ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s, but this ended in 1993. For decades, the MoD has refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular time or place. But in her verdict on the Guardian's complaint, the ombudsman decided there was no danger to national security if the weapons were no longer in service.
She said it was difficult to envisage that the "release of information about events that happened some time ago to weapons that no longer exist could cause harm if made more widely available".
AND
"British Falklands War ships had nuclear weapons
Reuters ^ | 06 Dec 2003
LONDON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - British warships during the Falklands War in 1982 carried nuclear depth charges, but the weapons never entered the territorial waters of any Latin American nation, the ministry of Defense said on Friday.
"The weapons were type WE177 nuclear depth charges. They were on the task force when it sailed south but never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands or any South American country," a spokesman told Reuters.
"The decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," he added, stressing that there had never been any intention of using the weapons.
He said it was the first time the British government had admitted that the task force assembled to retake the Falkland Islands after Argentina invaded and reclaimed the islands it knows as the Malvinas was equipped with nuclear weapons.
He stressed that it was routine for British naval surface ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s. The practice was finally ended in 1993.
The Argentine government issued an angry statement in response, seeking assurances from Britain that no nuclear weapons had been left in the Southern Atlantic, in sunken vessels or on the seabed.
"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."
The information came to light after a reporter asked for information about nuclear incidents.
Included in that information were details of several incidents involving damage to containers carrying the depth charges as they were transferred from the task force to the returning ships.
None of the damage to the containers was serious and none of the weapons was damaged, the spokesman stressed."
Dunno if they lost any WE177s on the ships that went down, but I remember reading recently that they did damage - or lose - WE177 transit containers.
"The UK dumped a boadload of WE177 Type C (600lb, Estimated yield - 10Kt. Variable yield fission weapon) free fall bombs (see photo) somewhere off the Falklands. Early in December Le Monde reported: Londres avait envoyé des armes nucléaires aux Malouines
Translated into Anglo-American, the government of Margret Thatcher sent tactical nuclear weapons (free-fall bombs, the WE177) with the invasion force, and shuffled them about, causing seven weapons containers to become damaged under unstated circumstances, and leaving open the possibility that one or more weapons containers were lost when the destroyer Sheffield was sunk after being engaged by an Exocet (surface-to-surface) missile."
AND
"Falklands warships carried nuclear weapons, MoD admits
Rob Evans and David Leigh
Saturday December 6, 2003
The Guardian
The Ministry of Defence admitted for the first time last night that British ships carried nuclear weapons in the Falklands war.
The disclosure came as the government was forced to concede - after a long-running campaign by the Guardian - that seven nuclear weapons containers were damaged during a series of wartime accidents.
But many of the details of these accidents are still being kept secret by the MoD.
Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ministry also refused to say whether any nuclear depth charges were on board HMS Sheffield, which was sunk during the war.
The MoD's admission confirms persistent rumours that the taskforce which recaptured the islands in 1982 was equipped with nuclear weapons.
The ministry insisted that there was never any intention to use the weapons during the war and that their presence did not break any disarmament treaties. But the admission has provoked concern from the Argentinian government. The Argentinian defence minister, Jose Pampuro, said he was worried in case the accidents had spread radioactivity and he wanted assurances from the MoD.
According to the limited information released by the MoD, the nuclear depth charges were already on board unnamed ships in the taskforce when it sailed to the South Atlantic at the outbreak of the war.
"A decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," said an MoD spokesman.
Seven containers were damaged "in some way" when they were transporting the weapons on to other ships.
The MoD claims that none of the actual weapons was damaged and that "in what was considered the worst case, a container sustained severe distortion to a door housing".
The MoD finally released information concerning the accidents after a six-year battle fought by the Guardian under the open government code.
After the MoD had blocked a request for information, the parliamentary ombudsman criticised the ministry and ordered it to publish a list of 20 accidents and mishaps involving nuclear weapons between 1960 and 1991.
But despite the ombudsman's critical verdict this year, the MoD concealed the Falklands accidents, and has only divulged their existence after further pressure from the Guardian.
Last night's admission by the MoD fails to clear up the most controversial allegation: that the nuclear weapons were sunk along the HMS Sheffield after the ship was hit by an Exocet a month into the war. The crippled ship was towed for six days until it sank.
Faced with the ombudsman's refusal to support the MoD's policy of secrecy, the department yesterday opted for damage limitation, putting out a statement to all media in the traditional slot for unwelcome news: late on a Friday afternoon.
The MoD said the transfers of the WE177 depth charges took place at various times during April, May and June 1982, "well away from other sea-going traffic, and the weapons were held in ships with the best-protected magazines before being returned to Britain".
The MoD insisted that the nuclear weapons never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland islands or any South American country.
The government has always said there was never any question of resorting to the use of nuclear weapons in the dispute.
The MoD said it was routine practice for British naval ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s, but this ended in 1993. For decades, the MoD has refused to confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular time or place. But in her verdict on the Guardian's complaint, the ombudsman decided there was no danger to national security if the weapons were no longer in service.
She said it was difficult to envisage that the "release of information about events that happened some time ago to weapons that no longer exist could cause harm if made more widely available".
AND
"British Falklands War ships had nuclear weapons
Reuters ^ | 06 Dec 2003
LONDON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - British warships during the Falklands War in 1982 carried nuclear depth charges, but the weapons never entered the territorial waters of any Latin American nation, the ministry of Defense said on Friday.
"The weapons were type WE177 nuclear depth charges. They were on the task force when it sailed south but never entered the territorial waters of the Falkland Islands or any South American country," a spokesman told Reuters.
"The decision was taken to transfer them to other ships heading back home," he added, stressing that there had never been any intention of using the weapons.
He said it was the first time the British government had admitted that the task force assembled to retake the Falkland Islands after Argentina invaded and reclaimed the islands it knows as the Malvinas was equipped with nuclear weapons.
He stressed that it was routine for British naval surface ships to carry nuclear weapons during the 1980s. The practice was finally ended in 1993.
The Argentine government issued an angry statement in response, seeking assurances from Britain that no nuclear weapons had been left in the Southern Atlantic, in sunken vessels or on the seabed.
"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."
The information came to light after a reporter asked for information about nuclear incidents.
Included in that information were details of several incidents involving damage to containers carrying the depth charges as they were transferred from the task force to the returning ships.
None of the damage to the containers was serious and none of the weapons was damaged, the spokesman stressed."
Cunning Artificer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The spiritual home of DeHavilland
Age: 76
Posts: 3,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One does wonder why the burning hulk of HMS Sheffield was towed around for six days rather than being scuttled, as would be usual in the circumstances. 
Suspicion breeds confidence
Why do you think the wreck of HMS Coventry was visited by an RN Diving team after the war? The cover story of retrieving confidential papers was only partly true.
Last edited by Navaleye; 29th Jun 2005 at 06:47.
Jet Blast Rat
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sarfend-on-Sea
Age: 50
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West Coast
Errrm ... that was the whole point, that they moved much of their air defence towards Buenos Aires. We didn't actually wish to hit there, we wanted those assets out of range of the conflict! Had they not done so the Vulcans could have reached Buenos Aires, over 500 nm closer than the Falklands, and probably got through.
The comment as to that being the reason for the Black Buck raids is of course speculation, but informed speculation, not my opinion. There is no proof, but it did show that a Vulcan could certainly (assuming it avoids air defence) have reached most parts of Argentina with enough punch to make a glass carpark had that been desirable. It was not desirable, and would not have been under any conceivable circumstances, but Dancing Bear was underestimating UK capabilities. In the minds of the Junta and the people was the possibility of bombs in their streets. Not good for morale.
Errrm ... that was the whole point, that they moved much of their air defence towards Buenos Aires. We didn't actually wish to hit there, we wanted those assets out of range of the conflict! Had they not done so the Vulcans could have reached Buenos Aires, over 500 nm closer than the Falklands, and probably got through.
The comment as to that being the reason for the Black Buck raids is of course speculation, but informed speculation, not my opinion. There is no proof, but it did show that a Vulcan could certainly (assuming it avoids air defence) have reached most parts of Argentina with enough punch to make a glass carpark had that been desirable. It was not desirable, and would not have been under any conceivable circumstances, but Dancing Bear was underestimating UK capabilities. In the minds of the Junta and the people was the possibility of bombs in their streets. Not good for morale.
This is hardly as big a story as all that. What on earth would we have dropped an NDB on? The solitary Argie diesel sub? Very simply, it was fully normal for NATO ASW ships to carry NDBs at the time, and the decision was clearly taken not to lose time fetching them back.
I thought the WE177 was a land attack weapon?
I thought the WE177 was a land attack weapon?