Dutch spies helped GCHQ break Argentine crypto during Falklands War

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
I answered your response. At the time, we had a nuclear deterent, yet Argentina still invaded our Sovereign Territory. So, who at the time would have defended Argentina if we used our nuclear opttion?
You asked a question at Post #150:

"Who/what would it have taken to nuke their Mainland (sic)".

I answered at Post #152:

"Them or their allies to have use one against us."

Therefore you wanted to know what it would require for the UK to attack Argentina with a nuclear weapon. I told you that they or their allies would have to use a nuclear weapon against us first before we would retaliate with a nuclear weapon. I repeat: We would not have attacked Argentina with a nuclear weapon in a first nuclear strike. So why are you now asking who would have defended Argentina if we had used a nuclear weapon against them?

What is it that you do not understand????
 
Last edited:
You asked a question at Post #150:

"Who/what would have taken to nuke their Mainland (sic)".

I answered at Post #152:

"Them or their allies to use one against us."

Therefore you wanted to know what it would require for the UK to attack Argentina with a nuclear weapon. I told you that they or their allies would to use a nuclear weapon against us first before we would retaliate with a nuclear weapon.

What is it that you do not understand????
I asked who or what would have to happen for us to use nuclear option on Argentina, because our nuclear capability wasn't a deterrent to them. Did it have to be the final option?
 
This was an unusually uncomplicated, in moral terms, conflict.
With the added wrinkle that had the Argentine Government been left wing they would have had support from the USSR but ONLY if it suited the larger purpose. In a way it probably stabilised things for a while.
 
I asked who or what would have to happen for us to use nuclear option on Argentina, because our nuclear capability wasn't a deterrent to them.
Argentina, then and now, probably couldn't do anything serious enough to warrant a nuclear option. They thought (correctly) that it was a non-nuclear game. They thought (incorrectly) that the UK didn't have the stomach or ability for a conventional fight.

Did it have to be the final option?
It was NEVER an option.
 
They thought (correctly) that it was a non-nuclear game.
Forgive the pedantry, but they knew. We issued a negative security assurance in 1978, which the Thatcher government didn't seek to modify. It was a qualified NSA, but the Argentines knew that as long as they didn't operate in conjunction with a nuclear weapons holding state, then there would be no use of nuclear weapons against them.

The junta was never going to fully and overtly cooperate with any nuclear weapons state; they were de facto at war with one; weren't going to get support from two more and another (China) held the ruthless view that it was not in their interest to get involved, and the USSR wasn't going to get involved in a major way either - first because the Junta weren't going to become beholden to a communist state and second because the Americans would've done their nut with all sorts of interesting consequences (including Jeanne Kirkpatrick having a nervous breakdown).

The NSA of 1978 meant that the junta knew that there'd be no nuclear response and we knew that they knew - thus it was irrelevant in the deterrent calculus in 1982.The junta had, of course, also concluded that Mrs Thatcher, being a woman, would be too timid to fight, an error that they all had time to reflect upon in their prison cells after their removal and trial...
 
Argentina actually did have a nuke program that went as far as an experimental uranium enrichment plant, in a local arms race with Brazil that they settled after both dictatorships fell
 

wafubustard

War Hero
I'd rather they peacefully negotiated my freedom.
The Falklands War was unusual in the lack of civilian casualties.
Statistically, there was a high chance those civilians could have been killed.
Jeremy Corbyn walt.
 

MoleBath

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
There would theoretically have been the we177 depth charges to defend the through deck cruisers but a big political hoop to jump through and not likely event
CORRECTION: See post by W21A
 
Last edited:
Really? I wonder why John Nott called France "Britain's greatest ally" in the Falklands war? Yes, I know they had a team in Argentina completing the contract for Exocet but this went against Mitterand's embargo and he was fairly livid the team didn't leave. The did provide UK with all the technical assistance they could.

And the US? That country that offered to lend us an aircraft carrier? That changed the orbit of its satellites to provide UK with intelligence? You mentioned the Sidewinder but there was also Stinger.
Reagan might have said the US was going to remain neutral but he gave UK all the assistance it could without being too obvious.
Same with when many of the task force arrived at Ascencion to find underground fuel tanks almost empty.
Which country do you reckon diverted a supertanker to refuel the British ships?
Rather a lot of quiet US assistance given, even down to manpower in Cheltenham.

Still lots of things not talked about but I think you'll find UK got rather a lot of assistance from France and the US even with many in both governments being against it. Jean Kirkpatrick, US ambassador to the UN, being very pro Argy plus some of Mitterand's (a socialist, remember) government.
Yes ok ok, i forgot about the offer of an aircraft carrier and i suppose the French may have told us who they had sold the rest of the Exocet to? I read about a mad shopping expedition where we had to buy up all of the Exocet on the market to deny them to Argentina who were trying to pick up a few more.

It was hardly the display of public solidarity to make Argentina think again that it could have been though which is what i meant by what i said.
 

goodoldboy

MIA
Book Reviewer
Yes ok ok, i forgot about the offer of an aircraft carrier and i suppose the French may have told us who they had sold the rest of the Exocet to? I read about a mad shopping expedition where we had to buy up all of the Exocet on the market to deny them to Argentina who were trying to pick up a few more.

It was hardly the display of public solidarity to make Argentina think again that it could have been though which is what i meant by what i said.
Are you alright?
 
What were the alternatives to the Falklands War?

Possibly a negotiated evacuation of the island's population and helping them to resettle in the UK, or NZ etc. Wouldn't cost much for only 2000 people.
This could have avoided much bloodshed. But possibly looked like a defeat for the British government. Would it have lost them the election? Maybe.

I think the truth is that a lot of the British population are more than happy to sit at home cheering on a war on the TV, safe in the knowledge that they will not be harmed by it.
Forced movement and resettlement of people?
Is that the ‘liberal‘ approach?
 
What were the alternatives to the Falklands War?

Possibly a negotiated evacuation of the island's population and helping them to resettle in the UK, or NZ etc. Wouldn't cost much for only 2000 people.
This could have avoided much bloodshed. But possibly looked like a defeat for the British government. Would it have lost them the election? Maybe.
It was ca massive failure of intelligence all round especially on the Argentine side, in that they had convinced themselves Britain wouldn't react with force - As a US intelligence officer said anyone who studied the IK its history its Psyche etc should have realised the UK would feel it had no choice but to react with force.

But that aside acquiescence or relocating the islanders would have been yet a further failure of deterrence

In the late 60s Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait**
In 78(ish) Guatemala was preparing to invade Belize
Both deterred by the UK demonstrating a commitment to defend them.

Walking away from the Falklands in 1982 - puts a number of nations who rely on the UK for security at risk.

**1990 was an intelligence failure but sovereignty was restored.
 

W21A

LE
Book Reviewer
There would theoretically have been the we177 depth charges to defend the through deck cruisers but a big political hoop to jump through and not likely event
The ship's involved in the Falklands war were de-nuced and a declaration made to that effect. Its in the public domain and also on this site somewhere.
 
It was ca massive failure of intelligence all round especially on the Argentine side, in that they had convinced themselves Britain wouldn't react with force - As a US intelligence officer said anyone who studied the IK its history its Psyche etc should have realised the UK would feel it had no choice but to react with force.

But that aside acquiescence or relocating the islanders would have been yet a further failure of deterrence

In the late 60s Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait**
In 78(ish) Guatemala was preparing to invade Belize
Both deterred by the UK demonstrating a commitment to defend them.

Walking away from the Falklands in 1982 - puts a number of nations who rely on the UK for security at risk.

**1990 was an intelligence failure but sovereignty was restored.
It's also worth mentioning 'Op Sheepskin' in Anguilla when 2 Para. was air-landed in March 1969.
 
Wasn't that the one where the locals rebelled in order to stay inside the empire?
Mixed reviews on that Op. Not so much that they wanted to "stay inside the empire" as you phrased it, but rather did not want to loose their identity in being absorbed into a greater Carribean community.
 

philc

LE
The ship's involved in the Falklands war were de-nuced and a declaration made to that effect. Its in the public domain and also on this site somewhere.
Yes and no, if you mean relocated then true.
 

Latest Threads

Top