Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Donner60 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk)

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While nuclear weapons were obviously not used in the 1982 Falklands War, there's an interesting nuclear aspect to the conflict. The Royal Navy warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the British stockpile of nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. The British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her.

I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed and rightly deleted. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and has since been considerably expanded and improved so I'm hopeful that the A-class criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Great work on this article. A fine piece of scholarship.

• Jumbled phrase: "for if the had war gone badly"
  • Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "Prior to the war Britain had ratified the Treaty of Tlatelolco" Say when this was?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link kilos of TNT? Convert?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "the British government issued a 'Negative Security Assurance'" Use double quotes per MOS:DOUBLE
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Link Ministry of Defence, Permanent secretary (UK), Foreign Secretary
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "a 300-yard (270 m) radius" The metric should be used first, with the imperial source in parentheses. (MOS:METRIC)
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• " a RFA vessel wasn't" an RFA? And "wasn't" should be "was not" (MOS:CONTRACTION)
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• "The containers holding several active and inert nuclear weapons were damaged during transfers" The source says seven.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• • Clarified. Thanks a lot for this review Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• All sources are of good quality.

• fn 2 and 4: Imperial War Museums is italicised in the former, but not the latter
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• fn 34: This is on pp. 57-58 (My 2005 edition may be different?)
  • It would seem so - the material on nuclear weapons starts on page 59 in my version, which is the paperback edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• fn 39: Should be pp. 60-62, not 62
  • @Hawkeye7: Can I check which iteration of this footnote you're referring to here? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

  • In my 2005 hardback edition of Freedman, 39a refers to pp. 59-60, the paragraph starting "It might have been possible"
    • Tweaked to pp. 61-62 (the material starts in the last couple of lines on page 61) Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39b describes the Cabinet meeting on 11 April, which is on p. 60, the sentence staring with "in the event and with enormous reluctance"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39c refers to training rounds, which are on pp. 57-58, the sentence starting with "Brilliant and Broadsword joined the Task Force"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39d is about the 28 May decision, which is on p. 60, the paragraph starting with "in the event and with enormous reluctance"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 39e is about the risk of nuclear depth bombs exploding, which is on pp. 60-61, the paragraph starting with "While they were still at sea"
    • Page 62 in my edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  I note that fn 13 also refers to p. 60

  • I'm not sure what you mean here? Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Spot checks: fn 41, 49 - okay
  • Thanks for this Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Falklands, Campaign, (Distances to bases) 1982.jpg - US Army image - PD - okay
• File:Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.jpg - White House photograph - PD- okay
• File:WE177 training nuclear bomb at Explosion Museum.jpg - Wikipedia image - UK had freedom of panorama - okay
• File:HMS Hermes (R12) underway on 16 March 1982 (6350754).jpg, File:RFA Fort Austin (A386) underway c1982.JPEG, File:HMS Repulse (S23) in the Firth of Clyde c1979.jpg - US Navy image - PD- okay
• File:Avro 698 Vulcan B2, UK - Air Force AN1236893.jpg - GNU FDL - okay

All images are appropriately licensed Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan

Hi Nick-D, my comments:

• Consider breaking up the 2nd paragraph to expand the length to the 4 paragraphs part of FAC criteria? I reckon you would want to take this article to FAC.
  • That's a good idea: done Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Shouldn't we mention in the lead that the weapons could have been put onboard ships and aircraft in order to counter potential Soviet involvement in the conflict?
  • Yep, added. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Link to International Institute for Strategic Studies as done for all other authors?
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• Provide a link or identifier for Mueller 1988? Iirc all issues of Int Sec are available on JSTOR.
  • Done Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
• In Polmar 2007, add the full name for the journal, namely the Proceedings of the US Naval Institute?
  • It seems to be universally called just Proceedings in the literature. Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

A good read overall, cheers Matarisvan (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for this review! Nick-D (talk) 02:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

  Happy to support for promotion to A class. You just need one more support now and can then go for FAC. Matarisvan (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Zawed - support

I reviewed this article for GA, and thought it was suitable for A-Class then. However, I see that have been some substantive additions since my GA review, mainly in the form of the new 'Commentary on nuclear deterrence' section and notes B and C. Reviewing these, the only issue I see is an odd phrasing in the new section. Towards the end of the second paragraph: "authored an article in 2012 critiquing that by Wilson." I think there may be a missing word after "that"? Otherwise, I am happy to support. Zawed (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• Many thanks - I've adjusted the wording of this para. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• Confirmed my support. Zawed (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.