IIRC we have a doper who was actually there. Perhaps he would like to comment?
My uncle was there but he never mentioned nukes.
A Brief History of the Falklands Conflict
Khruschev: We will crush you! We will crush you!
British: Crush this, you tosspot.
(Arms vessels with nuclear weapons.)
Years pass.
Briton #1: Do you remember those South American islands we own?
Briton #2: No.
In Argentina.
Argentinian government: The greatest pleasure in life is to crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!
(Grabs pissant British territory.)
Pissant British Territory: Help, we’re being invaded!
British: Who said that?
Pissant British Territory: We did, you wankers!
British: Oh, right. Hold fast, we’re coming. Off to the front, boys!
(Checks map first to see if Pissant British Territory really is a Pissant British Territory.)
Naysaying Britons: Wait, what about the nukes on the ships?
British leaders: Shite. No time for that, we’ll unload on the way! Up Guards and at 'em!
Naysaying Britons: But what about –
British leaders: War! War! WAR! WOOO–AAAARRR!!!
Naysaying Britons: Oh, sod off.
Disclaimer: Dramatization may not have happened.
Like these pussies would ever be near a fight…
The guys trying to dictate control over what people do and when are the same people that ran for the hall room monitor the second one of their classmates acted out of line.
What they don’t realize, or are even able to comprehend, is that someone needs to be in control.
They can’t handle it… at all.
What they offer up as a solution… anyone’s guess. They can’t stop bitching enough to figure it out themselves.
Go blow yourself Argentina, you’re a fucking loser.
He already has.
Is that supposed to be a cite?
If you or elucidator are claiming that the statement from the UK Ministry of Defence is an outright lie, then say so. It wouldn’t be the first time.
But if it is true that any nukes on board any of the vessels that sailed to the Falklands in the spring of 1982 had been removed before they reached Argentinian water, then what is there to apologise for?
It has been admitted that there were nuclear weapons on board when the ships left port. The reason they were on board at all is because they were standard equipment against the routine enemy of the day – the USSR, not Argentina.
The explanation for why they weren’t removed in port is that there was no need to do it then; making the earliest possible start on an 8,000 mile sea journey was priority #1.
I have no axe to grind in favour of the war – it was entirely avoidable and caused nothing but trouble at the time and since. But I think this is the beginning of the end for President Kirchner and I think Argentina desperately needs good government, not this sideshow.
I seem to have overlooked my own first rule: press for clarity before you press for agreement.
Nothing I have said should be taken to mean that I support Argentina’s demand for an apology. It takes two to tangle, but Argentina started this dance, which they could not hope to win militarily. To put people at risk needlessly is irresponsible, and merits nothing other than rebuke.
Applying the same principle to England evokes a similar response. Any time nuclear weapons are at hand, there is risk. Minimal risk, to be sure. But when those weapons are at hand on a warship bound for a combat zone, potential or real, the risk increases dramaticly. Also needlessly.
Much has been made here about the desperate urgency to have the ships at sea, and it is supposedly this urgency that made the removal of such weapons at sea unavoidable.
What, precisely, was the nature of this urgency? Were the Argentinians rounding up Brits and forcing them into aerobics classes? Constructing an impregnable citadel out of Leggos? Was there ever any realistic chance that Argentina could withstand British military force, given that crucial 36 hour head start?
elucidator, you’re being intentionally obtuse. Not that that’s anything new with you, but it’s particularly egregious in this thread.
They had to sail across an ocean, both east-west and north-south. What should they have done, told the Argentines that they weren’t ready to defend their property? That they should wait a few days so they could remove nukes they had no intention of using?
It’s analogous to someone going into your home. Just because you have a gun is no guarantee that you intend to use it. You seem to think that having nukes guarantees their use. Given that there have been only two uses of nuclear weapons against targets in history, I think that’s a silly argument to be making.
Nope. Don’t really care about the attempted extortion of an official apology, nor do I care much for being lumped in with anyone else here.
I’ll try to be plainer this time.
It’s simply foolish and facile to dismiss the international impact of having the nukes aboard. At the time, it was quite serious.
Unavoidable? Desperate urgency? Who has made any such claim?
Everything you’ve posted to this thread has been distorted by your own imagination:
Seems to me there are a lot of rhetorical questions there, which have all been addressed and you still don’t seem to get it. There was no “need” for any nukes to be used, they weren’t used; obviously it didn’t suddenly occur to the Navy that they had nukes on board; the nuclear capacity wasn’t “desireable” it was just standard.
Is it really for you to decide what the operation risk was of removing the weapons in transit rather than in dock? It was an operational decision made by people better qualified than you or I to weigh the risk against the benefit. They evidently decided it was safe enough and preferred the option of sailing as early as possible.
Do you know how often nuclear weapons are moved from ship to ship, or ship to shore by any nuclear capable navy? Do you assume that any such movement is irresponsible as a matter of course?
What aspect of the deployment of nuclear weapons has anybody here dismissed?
It depends on who you ask. Argentina would have said the islands were theirs while England obviously disagreed. Since England won, the dispute was settled in their favor.
As much as I admire your many talents, AD, I sincerely doubt that mind-reading is among them.
Can’t fault you on that one. Your grasp of the rudiments of geography is faultless. What it is in aid of escapes me.
The fallacy of the excluded middle. You propose that the only alternative to your argument is an absurdity. Ain’t so, and you’ll never get away with that around here.
No, but it does guarantee that you will have the capacity to use it. Or misuse it. Or have it available for misuse.
Yes it would be, were I making such an argument. But unless I’m very much mistaken, I recall speaking of the risk. The risk was entirely avoidable. Happily, it was avoided, and I commend the British for removing that risk, albeit belatedly. It would have been better if that procedure had been done while in port. Absent compelling evidence, it is my opinion that it should have been. If you have compelling evidence, bring it forth.
I don’t know why you felt a necessity to add insult to this discussion. But your issues are your own look-out, I’m here to argue and discuss, not service your self-esteem.
I’m not entirely certain what your problem is, but I am fairly sure that what you lack in historical perspective is only bested by your inability to process the written word. If at any point you choose to waive your wanton thickness, I’ll be here. Just let me know.
The OP clearly states the nuclear threat was exposed “20 years later.” That is not true. People were very upset about it at the time, including many Americans.
Some conspiracy theorists believed England removed its nukes due to international pressure. I don’t subscribe to that theory, but it was something bandied about my small Ohio town. In fact, as an Englishman and expert on things nuclear, my father was interviewed for a local radio program aimed at dispelling the rumors of “Brits possibly using the bomb.”
Now if I can remember this, I’m sure many Argentinians may still have hurt feelings. This mix of piss and vinegar seems perfectly timed to help take away the taste of domestic unrest.
Did the OP dismiss how upset these conspiracy theorists and rumour mongers of Ohio were, or was he simply unaware of their upset? We’ll have to wait for him to say.
In any case, nobody here has claimed that ships carrying nuclear weapons is a trivial matter in itself.
As far as your “piss and vinegar” remark is concerned, it’s no more than I’ve said myself except that I used less colourful language.
everton: No, the OP misstates when, precisely, public knowledge emerged about the ships’ possession of nuclear weapons.
Geez man, don´t give those guys ideas. 
And yes, Kirchner is babbling nonsense over this. Even more, I totally agree with Brutus this time :eek: there are more important issues they should be focusing on.
Pleasen oh please, do not dump all Argentines (or most, or even many) in the same league as Presidumb Kirchner. We all know that sometimes head of states (specialist in populist governments) do things that embarrass their own countrymen and make them think “WTF were we thinking”. I know. It happens to me all the time.
I don’t know what the Argentines think about this, but I am would not be surprised if a great many of them are scratching their heads too.
Do you actually have anything of any bearing to add to this discussion, or do you just like adding random, unsubstantiated claims of the knowledge of the people of Ohio and your father?
If I may make this as clear as possible:
- The OP (me) is merely quoting a newssource. Feel free to provide your cite showing where the BBC is wrong.
- Isn’t it just amazing that the Argentinian president picked this moment to demand an apology, if your claim is true that this has been public knowledge for 20 years.
- Please provide any evidence that these boats had nuclear weapons added in response to Argentina’s invasion, as compared to the MoD’s claim that they were part of their standard arms at the time.
I must admit that I’m somewhat baffled as to why this is so hard to explain. Argentina invaded the Falklands on the 2nd of April. On the 5th of April the fleet left the UK. The nukes were not put on board during this period. For the boats in question, they were part of the standard compliment of arms at that time. How the hell can you then arrive at the conclusion that this was a threatening gesture?
Let me ask another question - do you think that Britain should have delayed their response by the additional time taken to have taken these weapons off whilst in port? Why should they have given another day and a half for Argentina to prepare and strengthen defences?
Oh and Mighty_Girl, please believe me when I say I have aimed this rant purely at President Kirchner, and not at anyone else. Our politicians are just as idiotic.
Tell you what, here’s another cite for you:
So how about you try to justify your claim that I misstated on this, as it would appear that the BBC and Reuters are also not privy to the wisdom of the people of Ohio?
The problem’s not with you, Gary, it’s with your OP. I tried to clarify one small point and everton serially misinterpreted my information. (By the way, you misstated when you said 20 years later, it emerges that when these ships left docks they were in a bit of a hurry, so they left with nukes.)
Let’s not accuse me of making unsubstantiated claims. I heard what people in Ohio knew at the time and obviously, they were correct. But please have a look at what a few English were up to at the time:
At least some average Americans cared about the nuclear truth. Some English patriots were avoiding corned beef, of all things. Great sacrifice, that.
But since you’ve attacked the knowledge-base of Ohio, I thought I’d provide a little extra information. In an article from The Washington Post, Britain debated changes to its deployment of nuclear weapons due to mistakes made in the Falkland War (and due to public outcry surrounding it)*. Washingtonians and Ohioans. I’m starting to see a pattern. Spine-tingling.
Then, there’s Massachusetts. According to The Boston Globe, American citizens were unhappy about US Secretary of State Haig’s intervention in the nuclear fray between Argentina and the UK[sup]†[/sup]. Don’t look now, everton and Gary, the rumour-conspiracy is mounting.
- “Britain Debates Shape of Navy After Falklands,” The Washington Post, June 20, 1982
† “Leaving Nuclear War To the ‘Grown-ups’,” The Boston Globe, April 24, 1982
Mr B, I must congratulate you on perhaps the most meaningless reply I’ve seen in a long time. A completely irrelevant quote about corned beef being removed by some jingoistic shop keepers, and two cites without quotes or links. I particularly loved this:
Erm…what? I mean, as compared to people who didn’t care about the nuclear truth? Who were they then? And why, out of interest, does putting Americans in italics somehow give emphasis to your point? Wonderfully surreal.
May I please repeat, with an emphasis far too great for the written word, that your claims are a mix of the irrelevant and unsubstantiated. Hell I cannot even understand what point you’re trying to make? You say this is not news, as you knew people who thought 20 years ago that there were nukes on the fleet? Well seeing as the Argentinian president has only just made his demand, how about you let me pit him for it now. What fucking bearing does your posts have here? Are you really as inconsequential as you would seem.
I’m sorry, I thought it was well-researched and reasoned response, considering it was you who went on the offensive.
With the “beef post,” I made a tongue-in-cheek contrast to the Americans you chose to belittle.
Please go back and read my last message. Pay special attention to the cites’ headlines. They might help clear things up.
Again, I only came into this thread to establish that people, both English and American (and likely Argentinian), have known about the nukes since the war began.
It has not just recently emerged, as you said in the OP and continue to avoid to address.
So again, for your clarity’s sake, your OP was incorrect. The public knowledge of the ships’ nukes has not now, after 20 years, emerged. People knew about it then. Although I am assuming you’re angry because you only just now found out?