And don't think that USA would back UK with US nukes for every situation, and risk a nuclear war for British interests.

 

Using nukes is not very nice from a democracy but works.

USA bombed Japan conventionnaly and with nukes and it worked.

I'm sure British would have used nukes in Falkland war, or threaten to use them,  if they would have lose by conventional means.

Memories published after its death of french president F Mitterrand, said that M Thatcher said it to him on the phone when requiring french help .

 

Suez had nothing to do with being threatened by the US with their nuclear weapons, and everything to do with them bankrupting us if we did not withdraw.

While I appreciate the sentiment of maintaining the detterent, I would simply argue that the carriers are of top priority, above all else and if necessary the deterrent can pass to small nuclear tactical weapons.

There was never any serious consideration given to using or threatening to use nuclear weapons in the Falklands and short of using a SLBM on mainland Argentina, there was no opportunity to do so.

 

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1987/jul/02/falklands-war-nuclear-weapons-undertaking

Tough to do, but Australia and the US are working on long range Mach 8+ cruise missiles.Don't know yet if they can ever be torpedo-sized with a pop launch canister; but if they are:: sayonara SSBN.

 

Herald

.

France was blackmailed by Soviets in Suez who threatened to nuke France.

It was the reason we went nuclear soon after.

Nobody without nukes can resist the nuking threat of a first rank nuclear power.

Without nukes (or possibility to go nuclear quickly like Germany or Japan but which have no commitment to do overseas wars) you are a second order nation.

It is not possible to do overseas intervention so interfer in world policy by force without nukes and a credible deterrent or without been backed by a nuclear power (but then , you have to ask permission to go war to this power so you are a vassal).

 

 

Tell me, FS. How did that eventually work out for you? America's FURY never really went away because of that, you know. You may have prolonged their suffering and set back our intended liberation of Eastern Europe by thirty to forty years.

 

Herald

 

 

SSBN isn't the only way to deploy nukes. The SSBN has limited use outside of a MAD mass and agressive use of nukes on a large scale. If the SSBN launches, it launches a conciderable portion of its payload and tries to run from its position and nuclear retailation. They are end of the world type devices. Are ICBM's what you need in modern warfare anyway? Hot, high altitude, large missiles the way to go? Should the RN upgrade an existing asset or aquire new important assets and upgrade that existing asset later.

 

 The UK will still have SSBN's.. At the very least until 2040 (when it will be reviewed again). Its not like they traded them in at the dealership.

 

 The carriers can also deploy nuclear power if required on a tactical/strategic level. F-35's with nuclear devices might be a more credable threat than a SSBN anyway. Tactom can be upgraded to nuclear if required.

Inconceivable.

 

The link is to Hansards (the written summary of parliamentary questions) - and states unequivocally that no consideration was given to using nuclear weapons during the Falklands War. About six nuclear depth charges were cross decked from ASW escorts to other vessels held further back (possibly the Hermes as neither carrier was kept close to the islands) - but that's the sum total of nuclear involvement.

 

Firing a nuclear tipped ballistic missile at a foreign power because they've invaded a colonial possession several thousand miles distant is somewhat of an over reaction.

 

And underlines my point that the carriers are absolutely vital - a strong air group overhead covering a balanced expeditionary fleet is far more directly useful.

 

I've read multiple military histories of the Falklands campaign and the only time nuclear use was discussed, was by paras making the odd joke.

 

Ian

 

 

Haven't read your link, but i could have sworn i read somewhere that after Argentina first attacked, Reagan had to talk her out of nuking the capital of Argentina.