According to this we almost had a nuke war!!

[Cookie]

Anyone belive this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/argentina/story/0,11439,1647762,00.html

"That Thatcher, what an impossible woman!" the president said as he arrived, more than 45 minutes late, on May 7 1982. "With her four nuclear submarines in the south Atlantic, she's threatening to unleash an atomic weapon against Argentina if I don't provide her with the secret codes that will make the missiles we sold the Argentinians deaf and blind."

[kitkatman]

wow...that could have been a lot off corn beef hash in the aiir.....

[Abb]

Don't believe a word of it. Thatcher would never have had the authority from Parliament to launch nuclear strikes on Argentina.

I will ask more learned people and see what they say.

[Cookie]

Don't believe a word of it. Thatcher would never have had the authority from Parliament to launch nuclear strikes on Argentina.

I will ask more learned people and see what they say.

Could have been a bloody good bluff though - it did the trick!

[Blurt]

As far as I can remember, the Argies had fitted the wrong fuses to the exocets... they were going in and then out before exploding.... the Sun then printed this on the front page, our ships then started getting sunk.

Never worked on the exocet system but I imagine it would not require a code, but a frequency aimed at the rear of the missile with a lot of DB to take out it's "hearing" guidance capability...

[Dougie]

The French government were still selling weaponry to Argentina as our ships were getting sunk. :mad:
I remember seeing two or three USAF Starlifters flying into RAF Leuchars during that period,I wonder what they were carrying? :rolleyes:
An idea put forward by a Vulcan pilot (remembering the Black Buck strikes against Port Stanley airfield) was to do something similar,but to take a pair of Vulcans at very low level and high speed over Buenos Aires.That would probably have had a seriously terrifying effect on Jose Public.The upper echelons dismissed the idea.Now before anyone says the Vulcans would have been shot down before they got anywhere near the mainland think on this:
It was designed and equipped to penetrate some of the most heavily defended targets the world has seen,in the Soviet Union.In excercises against the USAF Vulcans regularly penetrated the fighter screen,leaving F15s and F16s floundering in their wake,wondering what happened.For its size the Vulcan was surprisingly stealthy with a small radar cross section,and was blessed with fighter like manoueverability at both low and especially high levels,as anyone who has seen a display by one will testify.Maybe had the powers that be actually sanctioned the mission the invasion to retake the islands would not have been necessary,as Galtieri would probably have shat himself.
However,I'm positive somebody here will disagree! :D

[kitkatman]

for Fucks Sake....that Was Then....













































lets Drop A Crowd Pleaser On The Fuckers Now......for A Bit Of Fun, Like :d :d

[smeghead]

The French government were still selling weaponry to Argentina as our ships were getting sunk. :mad:
I remember seeing two or three USAF Starlifters flying into RAF Leuchars during that period,I wonder what they were carrying? :rolleyes:
An idea put forward by a Vulcan pilot (remembering the Black Buck strikes against Port Stanley airfield) was to do something similar,but to take a pair of Vulcans at very low level and high speed over Buenos Aires.That would probably have had a seriously terrifying effect on Jose Public.The upper echelons dismissed the idea.Now before anyone says the Vulcans would have been shot down before they got anywhere near the mainland think on this:
It was designed and equipped to penetrate some of the most heavily defended targets the world has seen,in the Soviet Union.In excercises against the USAF Vulcans regularly penetrated the fighter screen,leaving F15s and F16s floundering in their wake,wondering what happened.For its size the Vulcan was surprisingly stealthy with a small radar cross section,and was blessed with fighter like manoueverability at both low and especially high levels,as anyone who has seen a display by one will testify.Maybe had the powers that be actually sanctioned the mission the invasion to retake the islands would not have been necessary,as Galtieri would probably have shat himself.
However,I'm positive somebody here will disagree! :D
saw a vulcan at a firepower demo **** myself you just dont hear the thing till it's gone over bloody scary

[critch]

for Fucks Sake....that Was Then....













































lets Drop A Crowd Pleaser On The Fuckers Now......for A Bit Of Fun, Like :d :d

this message was brought to you by the church of K.K.M and R.R's mission for world peace....... :D

[griff2000]

this message was brought to you by the church of K.K.M and R.R's mission for world peace....... :D

Welcome one and all to The Church of Cabbage. Lettuce pray.......

[wearthefoxhat]

Another whistle blowing book by a marginal wannabee of little or no consequence

He doesn't even have the street cred of Peter Wright ffs.

Death to whistle blowers (who just happen to have written a book, published real close to you very soon)

[Dougie]

Imagine one of these buggers running in at 200 feet and 500 knots! :eek: :eek:

[rommel]

I remember, when I was a youngster, seeing these jets fly over where I lived in Bristol, they were huge and very frightening.......................... :eek:

[Bassman]

Def. one of the better looking planes them... they look superb... :D

[STEViE]

Imagine one of these buggers running in at 200 feet and 500 knots! :eek: :eek:
Never did get to see one of them. They always impressed me when I saw footage an' photos of 'em tho :)

[Borg]

The missiles where French, the guidance system was British, irony isn't only lost on the Exocet. The bearing for the turret on the Chieften tank where Russian made.

[Captain Smurf]

Don't believe a word of it. Thatcher would never have had the authority from Parliament to launch nuclear strikes on Argentina.

I will ask more learned people and see what they say.
But would that have stopped her?

[Abb]

From another place:

"Because the Exocet missile was emiting "NATO compatible" signals, british defenses did not identify it and shot it down - hence the hit an Exocet scored on a british ship. The method to this madness is that when trading rockets with the enemy you don't want your defenses to shoot down your own rockets that neighbouring vessels are firing.

Now that british went to french and requested the info that would enable then to mark the Exocet signal 'enemy', it's possible."

[Jay]

Thatcher would never have had the authority from Parliament to launch nuclear strikes on Argentina..I agree, but at some stage there has to be a point to having nuclear weapons in your arsenal.

If they aren't ever going to be used, why do we have them?

[Parky]

the book looks like it could be a funny read but nothing else, as far as the Vulcan goes, she was a lovely bird in the skys, i saw xh558 in her final year as a display plane, she was a fly past at a basic recruit passing out parade, did a low level wing over directly over the parade and blew many hats off the guys on parade.

XH558 is nearing completion for a return to flying status so she can once again grace the airshow circuit in the next year or two http://www.vulcan558club.com/default.htm

[Abb]

I agree, but at some stage there has to be a point to having nuclear weapons in your arsenal.

If they aren't ever going to be used, why do we have them?

Active deterant to people firing Nuclear Weapons at you.

[Jay]

Active deterant to people firing Nuclear Weapons at you.
But if you are never going to fire them, how does that deter anyone?

[Abb]

But if you are never going to fire them, how does that deter anyone?

Cos you will fire them if attacked in a non-conventional way.

[Worjorj]

As far as I can remember, the Argies had fitted the wrong fuses to the exocets... they were going in and then out before exploding.... the Sun then printed this on the front page, our ships then started getting sunk.Almost. The fuses where incorrectly set on the bombs, not the missiles. The impeller to arm the bomb had too much travel and couldn't be set with the time the bomb was in the air. A reporter on the Hermes promptly reported this back thinking he was up for a Pulitzer or something. Consequently, the argies then shortened the arming time with the impeller with disastrous consequences. The reporter was not very popular, but I don't know what happened to him.


Never worked on the exocet system but I imagine it would not require a code, but a frequency aimed at the rear of the missile with a lot of DB to take out it's "hearing" guidance capability...The defence against the excocet at the time was by using radar "distraction" and "seduction". Basically, distraction is when the missile locks onto a large radar image, so by putting a larger radar reflection nearby, the missile will go for that instead. Seduction is when you put a larger image between you and the target then you bugger off in a different direction, a bit like a smoke screen.

[Jay]

Cos you will fire them if attacked in a non-conventional way.At which point, they haven't really deterred your enemy then?

[Worjorj]

At which point, they haven't really deterred your enemy then?Yes they have, coz they haven't done it.

[Jay]

Yes they have, coz they haven't done it.Apart from the Americans of course.

[Abb]

At which point, they haven't really deterred your enemy then?
However, as no other power has ever done this, one can argue that the deterant was entirely successful, yes?

[Abb]

Apart from the Americans of course.

When have America ever used Nuclear Weapons in battle aside from the two notorious cases in WWII - cases that effectively shortened the war and saved countless lives?

[Jay]

However, as no other power has ever done this, one can argue that the deterant was entirely successful, yes?A good point Mr A, I think the acronym MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) is used to describe this stalemate.....the old 'you chuck one at me and I'll chuck one back' situation.

I would argue that it is only a delay and that soon enough, someone (my money is on an oriental nation) will have another go at using them.

[Jay]

When have America ever used Nuclear Weapons in battle aside from the two notorious cases in WWII - cases that effectively shortened the war and saved countless lives?I believe the Aericans have started other projects using nuclear technology. I seem to remember something about creating a 'Battle-field' weapon, essentially a small device carrying the nasty stuff in the form of a large shell with regular explosive to release it.

and saved countless lives?indeed in the short-term, how many lives have been lost since the initial explosions? Granted they were the 'enemy' but not the people that are still dying today!

Is this the bigger derterrant? The fact that releasing one these weapons has such enormous consequences (aside from any military ramifications).

[tease]

I believe the Aericans have started other projects using nuclear technology. I seem to remember something about creating a 'Battle-field' weapon, essentially a small device carrying the nasty stuff in the form of a large shell with regular explosive to release it.

indeed in the short-term, how many lives have been lost since the initial explosions? Granted they were the 'enemy' but not the people that are still dying today!

Is this the bigger derterrant? The fact that releasing one these weapons has such enormous consequences (aside from any military ramifications).
I would like to answer this one. There USED to be battlefield nukes, or suitcases as to the size of the container. They were employed by (though never used, ever) by the military occupational specialty 12E. When I first joined the Army as a combat engineer (12B) within 8 months that MOS was phased out as all the suitcases were taken OUT of military hands. So , no, other than the two atomic (not nuclear, BIG difference) not other devices of the sort were ever used.
As a deterant there can be no question as to how well it worked. The entire MAD war was the US against Russia, and I dont think Russia, even though it was threatened, ever launched against anyone either. It may have been a dangerous game, but it was played and had to be, and now we have these dangerous and deadly weapons around, many are disarmed, but the problem NOW is what to do with the weapons grade plutonium?

As to what happened with fat man and little boy with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Had they not launched the war could have carried on many more years and cost those lives times god knows how much. People are NOT still dying from the effects so much later, atomic energy disipates much faster than nuclear as it has a much shorter half-life. Look at it this way, people have been safely living, growing up, giving birth and dying there for decades, no noticeable increase in any forms of cancer, while after over 20 years chernobyl is STILL glowing red hot even after being encased in lead and concrete.

[Dougie]

The worrying thing is that the USSR had a good few suitcase sized atomic weapons,but since the breakup of the Soviet Union several can no longer be accounted for.Whether they're at the back of a weapons store somewhere or sold off to the highest bidder is unknown.While small they are VERY effective in the urban environment....... :eek:

[Jay]

As to what happened with fat man and little boy with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Had they not launched the war could have carried on many more years and cost those lives times god knows how much. People are NOT still dying from the effects so much later, atomic energy disipates much faster than nuclear as it has a much shorter half-life. Look at it this way, people have been safely living, growing up, giving birth and dying there for decades, no noticeable increase in any forms of cancer, while after over 20 years chernobyl is STILL glowing red hot even after being encased in lead and concrete.So are you actually saying that the only people to die as a result of these 2 bombs, were those that were killed in the initial blast? The research I have seen doesn't agree with this and reports from the Radiation Effects Research Foundation notes that 'between 1950-1990, 51% of the cancer related deaths in Hiroshima alone, are attributable to radiation exposure'. If that's wrong then the RERF aren't doing the USA any favours with their research.



I would like to answer this one. There USED to be battlefield nukes, or suitcases as to the size of the container. They were employed by (though never used, ever) by the military occupational specialty 12E. When I first joined the Army as a combat engineer (12B) within 8 months that MOS was phased out as all the suitcases were taken OUT of military hands. So , no, other than the two atomic (not nuclear, BIG difference) not other devices of the sort were ever used..I am not sure this is what I was referring to, the reference was to far smaller Shell-sized weapons.

I understood that late on into the development of them, the question as to what happens if the wind is blowing towards your own troops, ceased the project!

[tease]

No, Jay, I wasnt implying that the only deaths were from the initial blast, or even the initial fallout. I WAS correcting the fact that they WERENT nuclear, but atomic and the differences between them.
I do feel the decision was a correct one to use them, but not that they were nuclear, THIS was the mistatement I was correcting and that Atomic fallout is nowhere NEAR as long lasting as nuclear.

[Jay]

No, Jay, I wasnt implying that the only deaths were from the initial blast, or even the initial fallout. I WAS correcting the fact that they WERENT nuclear, but atomic and the differences between them.
I do feel the decision was a correct one to use them, but not that they were nuclear, THIS was the mistatement I was correcting and that Atomic fallout is nowhere NEAR as long lasting as nuclear.Look at that, I missed your point completely.

No doubt there is a significant difference bewtween the 2, what is it?

[kitkatman]

this message was brought to you by the church of K.K.M and R.R's mission for world peace....... :D
too right........ :D

[Dougie]

Look at that, I missed your point completely.

No doubt there is a significant difference bewtween the 2, what is it?
Different isotopes with different half lives perhaps? :confused:

[Abb]

Here is a pretty definitive rebuttal of this story from Weaver of the 1jma

That is the biggest load of complete and utter bollox I've ever read in my life!

Man, where to start.......

This is a bit light on dates and names as I type it because I'm at work. I'll fill them in later tonight if I may. In red.

1. The RN nuclear submarines deployed to the South Atlantic were hunter-killers, NOT ballistic missile subs. Their names are known. Now while the movements of subs are, by definition, unprovable without access to secret information, do you REALLY think that Mrs.T would have pulled 25% of our entire deterrent off it's cold-war patrol station over the bloody Falklands? Do you think she'd have risked losing one of those fantastically expensive missile subs? Get Real.

The following subs are credited to the Task Force at some point or another: Spartan, Splendid, Conqueror, Valiant, Courageous, Onyx. None of those are Polaris subs.

2. What possible diplomatic justification could we have mustered for nuking a NON-NUCLEAR state over a six-of-one-and-half-a-dozen-of-the-other territorial dispute 8000 miles away from our homeland? Nukes are for use only when the very exisitence of your country is at stake: even if Argentina had managed to hang onto the Falklands, that wouldn't have made one jot of difference to the British State as a whole. Most Brits couldn't have found the Falklands on a map in January 1982: that's how much practical importance they had to us.

2. The BIGGEST user of Exocet after the French navy was, wait for it, the Royal Navy! So if such codes existed, why didn't we have them already?

Also, we didn't "suddenly" realise the Exocet threat after Sheffield was hit. I clearly remember that, from the moment the Task Force set off, the media ran endless stories about the Exocet threat and the RN's vulnerability to it. So even if we didn't have the alleged Exocet disabling codes at the start of the crisis, why did we supposedly wait until AFTER Sheffield had been hit before asking for them? Why didn't we ask for them from the moment we decide to send the Task Force?

3. Aerospatiale delivered five Exocets to Argentina before the arms embargo came down. FIVE. Even if all of them had hit their targets, they still wouldn't have been enough to deter the British operation unless they'd hit a carrier, and the carriers were positioned far enough east to put them firmly out of range of such an attack.

4. At the time the French technicians left Argentina, NONE of the Super Etendards had a workable Exocet installation. They were made operational by some ingenious bodgery on the part of Argentine technicians, without any help from the French.

5. The fate of all five Exocets is known. One of them hit HMS Sheffield, (May 4th)Sheffield detected the aircraft but did not identify it or detect the signal from it's Agave radar. The missile was fired from just 6 miles: far less than the 20+ miles the crew had been told to expect. Sheffield's first warning of the attack came from a visual sighting by a lookout with binoculars and she had NO time to take any action to defend herself: no chaff, no missiles, no gunnery, nothing. The issue of IFF codes or "secret" codes was irrelevent because no action of any sort was taken, electronic or otherwise.

A the same time, a second missile was fired, which was seduced by a chaff cloud from a frigate (HMS Yarmouth) , ran out of fuel, and ditched into the sea. If the frigate had the capability to "order" an Exocet to crash, why didn't it order BOTH of them to crash, thus saving the Sheffield?

Two more missiles were fired at the container ship Atlantic Conveyor (on 25 May) AFTER the date on which we were supposed to have the secret codes. Despite the fact that the ship was being escorted by naval vessels, one of the missiles hit the ship causing a very serious loss. If we'd had the capability to "order" an Exocet to crash, don't you think we'd have done it to save the ship with ALL but one of our in-theatre Chinooks on it?

The last missile was expended in an attempt to outflank the RN fleet (30 May). An Etendard and four Skyhawks, refuelled by ALL the FAA's refuelling assets and guided by a Neptune LRMPA, swung far to the South and then turned north to attack elements of the RN fleet. The plan was to fire the missile and then have the Skyhawks follow it in, exploiting the confusion. However, the missile ws shot down as soon as it appeared, possibly by a frigate's 4.5" gun (Avenger) , and the Skyhawks broke off.

Sounds pretty good to me, and he usually knows his stuff.

[tease]

Look at that, I missed your point completely.

No doubt there is a significant difference bewtween the 2, what is it?
Atomic fallout
Principal hazards of radioactivity produced by detonations of atomic weapons are I (half-life 11.5 days) and Sr (Half-life approximately 30 years).^General protective measures that can be taken against radioactive fallout are shelter and decontamination, and the avoidance of ingestion or inhalation of contaminated mediums from the environment.^Persons who have been exposed to radioactive fallout may show burns, hematologic and bone marrow changes, and infection.
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6759786

Nuclear fallout
Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. It is a major source of radiation in nuclear fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue. Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28 years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days. Strontium-90 follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from cows consuming contaminated forage. Iodine-131 is a similar threat to infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland. In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives. A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs, where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.

Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and has a half-life of 24,000 years. To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effects/wenw_chp2.shtml

It may be abit more indepth than what you wanted, but the difference between the two are huge

[kitkatman]

Atomic fallout
Principal hazards of radioactivity produced by detonations of atomic weapons are I (half-life 11.5 days) and Sr (Half-life approximately 30 years).^General protective measures that can be taken against radioactive fallout are shelter and decontamination, and the avoidance of ingestion or inhalation of contaminated mediums from the environment.^Persons who have been exposed to radioactive fallout may show burns, hematologic and bone marrow changes, and infection.
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6759786

Nuclear fallout
Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a half-life of 30 years. It is a major source of radiation in nuclear fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue. Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28 years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days. Strontium-90 follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from cows consuming contaminated forage. Iodine-131 is a similar threat to infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland. In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives. A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs, where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.

Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and has a half-life of 24,000 years. To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Effects/wenw_chp2.shtml

It may be abit more indepth than what you wanted, but the difference between the two are huge



and they say smokings bad for you :eek:

[oncer]

I believe the Aericans have started other projects using nuclear technology. I seem to remember something about creating a 'Battle-field' weapon, essentially a small device carrying the nasty stuff in the form of a large shell with regular explosive to release it.

The M110 SPHow (203mm Self Propelled Howitzer) could fire the M422 and M753 nuclear rounds.

[Dougie]

5 Heavy Regiment RA had M110s,don't know if they had nuke ammunition tho'.....
I've seen US Army test film of one of these firing a nuclear shell,pretty spectacular,but I'd be REALLY worried about it dropping short! :eek:

[Worjorj]

Dropping short is a lot less likely than the US ammo fitted with the Union Flag homing device on it. :rolleyes:

[Dougie]

There is that. :eek: Many many moons ago when I was in the Terries we had a live firing ex at Otterburn (utter UTTER sh!thole) on 25pdrs,I was the gunlayer (the fella wot makes it go bang).The shell had been loaded and rammed home and the cartridge with the propellant had been placed in the breech.Unfortunately the loader had taken his paw away before the breechblock was raised so the cartridge started sliding out.The whole crew (me included) took off at a rate of knots,leaving the idiot loader to catch the bloody thing!Had it hit the ground they'd have been picking bits of us off the countryside,so a slapping was administered......... :eek:

[oncer]

Dropping short is a lot less likely than the US ammo fitted with the Union Flag homing device on it. :rolleyes:

That'd be funny if it wasn't true. Anyone know if we've lost more troops to 'Friendly fire than the nme since WW2. It wouldn't surprise me if we had.
I'm sure they use us to find the range and then up it 100.

[Sir Ewok]

Abb says the Falklands had no practical value to Britain. I may be wrong, but I believe that there is oil in the waters within the territorial waters of the Falklands. Unfortunately this is also within the waters of the (Arctic/Antarctic?) continent which cannot be exploited by international agreement. Should the world's supply of oil fall to critical levels, then we would be the owners of an untapped supply.
If I am wrong on this maybe somebody could let me know......

[tease]

That'd be funny if it wasn't true. Anyone know if we've lost more troops to 'Friendly fire than the nme since WW2. It wouldn't surprise me if we had.
I'm sure they use us to find the range and then up it 100.
Not friendly fire, but any countries Army loses MANY troops in training alone. In any Battalion I was in we had at least 2 training deaths a year, and this doesnt include accidents not resulting in death.
Before it is said, as soldiers we accepted that risk, did whatever we could to minimise it, BUT the training HAS to be as close to real as you can possibly get it, it is "train as you fight" to save lives in combat.

[rommel]

I believe the services have an acceptable death rate in training of 5% but could not say if this is accurate :eek:

[oncer]

Not friendly fire, but any countries Army loses MANY troops in training alone. In any Battalion I was in we had at least 2 training deaths a year, and this doesnt include accidents not resulting in death.
Before it is said, as soldiers we accepted that risk, did whatever we could to minimise it, BUT the training HAS to be as close to real as you can possibly get it, it is "train as you fight" to save lives in combat.

Agreed, there's no point training 'soft' cos when the smelly stuff hits the extractor things will really go tit's up.