No, just no. Thatcher was not a madwoman and, even for someone with her refreshingly 19th century views, employing nuclear weapons (even as a demonstration) would be breaking the clear 35-year precedent that no major powers would employ them except in a MAD scenario. Plus, the US was being kept informed on British plans, and had considerable leverage with Thatcher. She would not go nuke without letting the US know. There is simply no way the Reagan administration would allow Britain to use nukes. If the British campaign or invasion went south, I suspect that Reagan would be the one who acted to ensure the Falklands were returned to Britain, not with nukes, but with strong-arm diplomacy followed if necessary by real aircraft carriers, B-52s, and US marines if need be. And the Soviets would do nothing.
Margaret Thatcher use nuclear weapons on Argentina during Falklands War
- Thread starter Historyman 14
- Start date
Assuming Mitterand's psychiatrist can accurately remember a conversation from that long ago, and wasn't just making it up to shift books, what probably happened was Thatcher made a comment about the war escalating and a frustrated Mitterand subsequently exaggerated it into her threatening the use of nuclear weapons in what he thought was a casual and private context.
and you would trust Mitterand's word? Let alone his word at second hand remembered years later?
Never happened. Never would.
The alternative to the Task Force, as IOTL, as offered to Milksnatcher was to go much later with extra carriers and 2 heavy cruisers. Not throwing WMDs around even in a bluff. She would see the inside of the Tower within minutes of trying it.
Never happened. Never would.
The alternative to the Task Force, as IOTL, as offered to Milksnatcher was to go much later with extra carriers and 2 heavy cruisers. Not throwing WMDs around even in a bluff. She would see the inside of the Tower within minutes of trying it.
No way Thatcher is going nuclear. At worst, if the Argentinians escalate it all out of proportion, the war will shift from "protect the Falklands" to "remove Junta", and possibly add other NATO members. (If Argentina used WMDs and/or committed atrocities against the civilian population Thatcher would be well within rights to invoke article five and the U.S. at least would take it seriously)
Yeah, I could see a whole bevvy of US, British, Soviet, and French leaders getting frustrated and saying something in a private conversation with another leader like "I should just nuke the bastards" without really meaning it. In fact it's probably a good thing they vent in this way.
Yuelang
Banned
If only Argentinians are mad enough to employ Chemical weapons against falklands' population centre and initiate a massacre first, then Thatcher can basically go scot-free when her retaliate with Nuking *Some Argentinian Military Bases*.
Nuking Population center and directly intent to kill innocent civilians is a no-no for a civilized democratic nation.
But still, Britain is still written down in history as the second user of Nuclear Weapons against human beings, and the third Nuclear attack in war, that can't be good for UK's future relations with Latin America.
Nuking Population center and directly intent to kill innocent civilians is a no-no for a civilized democratic nation.
But still, Britain is still written down in history as the second user of Nuclear Weapons against human beings, and the third Nuclear attack in war, that can't be good for UK's future relations with Latin America.
Even if the Argentines used chemical weapons against civilians in the Falklands, nukes still would be off the table. Reagan would tell her that in no uncertain terms. However the US would give Thatcher carte blanche and possibly direct US support to do anything short of nukes. As far as the US would be concerned, Britain would have complete freedom to respond massively against military, aviation, and naval targets throughout Argentina, and possibly even a military campaign in Argentina itself aimed at "regime change" because its already internationally unpopular military junta were clearly and unequivocably guilty of crimes against humanity.
By using chemical weapons in the Falklands, the Argentines would have elevated the conflict far beyond a war about an insiginificant island group in the South Atlantic. Short of nukes, Britain would have reached the moral high ground...quite possibly among the Argentine left as well.
By using chemical weapons in the Falklands, the Argentines would have elevated the conflict far beyond a war about an insiginificant island group in the South Atlantic. Short of nukes, Britain would have reached the moral high ground...quite possibly among the Argentine left as well.
Uhm, no. While article 5 does say
NATO charter Article 5 said:
there is relevant section in next chapter which states
NATO charter Article 6 said:
(2) On January 16, 1963, the North Atlantic Council noted that insofar as the former Algerian Departments of France were concerned, the relevant clauses of this Treaty had become inapplicable as from July 3, 1962.
Falklands clearly fall ouside area covered by Article 6 so Article 5 can't be invoked.
He'd have to. If Argentina is using WMD against British civilians then the US would need a lot more leverage than they ever had in OTL to stop a nuclear response. That could only come from committing US forces - an awful lot of them - and from promises about removing the Junta and placing them on trial for war crimes. Anything less would see Thatcher losing power and replaced with someone willing to be much more robust.
Mr.Stookey
Banned
Cool fact: A British Nuclear Submarine took part in the action. Forgot the details, but know it fought in a naval battle.
Only time in history a Nuclear armed weapon or vehicular was used in combat.
Maybe something crazy happens and the sub is sinking. A nuke blows up onboard. Argentina thinks this is an attack. And let's say the Junta has nukes and fires one aganist the fleet.
Britain then use some nukes
Only time in history a Nuclear armed weapon or vehicular was used in combat.
Maybe something crazy happens and the sub is sinking. A nuke blows up onboard. Argentina thinks this is an attack. And let's say the Junta has nukes and fires one aganist the fleet.
Britain then use some nukes
There was at least 3 Nuclear "powered" subs in the area and one of them Sank the Heavy Cruiser General Belgrano (Ex-USS Phoenix) on the 2nd May.
They were not nuclear weapon "armed"!
The chances of the Argentine Navy actually sinking one is about equal to me farting my way into orbit!
An accident on board one is not going to result in a mushroom cloud
And the Argentines don't have nukes - not even sure if they had chemical weapons?
Saphroneth
Banned
The submarine is no more nuclear armed than the USS Enterprise is nuclear armed, or than the USS Monitor was armed with a weapon which fired exploding coal and steam.
Sulemain
Banned
I do believe even the Spanish call them the Falklands. Malvinas is particularly charged. Not to mention the whole "wicked witch" thing.
Saphroneth
Banned
It's another name for the Falklands in the same way as another name for the ACW is the War of Northern Aggression. It indicates which side you're on - or that you're being really sarcastic.
Delta Force
Banned
USS Enterprise was almost certainly nuclear armed, at least during its Cold War service.
Saphroneth
Banned
I mean now. She's got a nuclear reactor, so by this logic she's always nuclear armed.