*shrug*

I really don't see what's so scary about this. They had 'em, but clearly didn't have any intention of using them.

The US had been coy about it, but it's generally accepted that carriers (and likely other ships) have had nuclear weapons on board for decades. I would assume they were carried to Vietnam, just in case the Ruskies got frisky. [I think it's been announce that since the 90's nuclear weapons are no longer routinely carried.]

Fnord: They had 'em, but clearly didn't have any intention of using them.

If the Argies had sunk the QE2 or a carrier then it probably would have have tipped the conflict in their direction.

Thatcher, seeing the UK on the brink of a humiliating defeat, may have given the order to take the conflict nuclear..... She had the balls to do so.

We were, to an extent, lucky to win this. It was only by sheer grit and determination, our fighting infratructure was badly strained in getting us down there. It was almost a long-distance Dunkirk.

I do not think Thatcher would have ever used nukes. The Argies simply do not warrant it. The fleet was sent so fast that there was little time for prep. I agree with the poster above. British resolve versus Argie conscript troops. Helluva fight.

I'm just glad that things didn't escalate, I would have hated to see Argentina as a large crater on maps in my History classes...

/Colombia on the other hand...
//Actually, I doubt it's not so bad.
///Maybe it is.

and the Sheffield (sunk by a frenchmade exocet missle) didn't have them i suppose since its was only a destroyer.

I don't see what all the fuss is about - 2 ships were fitted with 2 nuke depth charges each - which were then loaded onto carriers that stayed out of Falkland territorial waters.......

/shame no links about the stuff going on in Portsmouth today...

I remember hearing about this a couple years ago. Why is it news now?

Actually what the submitter wrote makes perfect sense, there is nothing scary about it.

Gee, what a surprise.

In other news, major allies of the Smith and Wesson company have guns, and have even brought these to fights that weren't yet gunfights when they were called.

fnord: I got a frined of mine whos dad was a pilot on a carrier in vietnam. At least twice he was on the deck waiting to launch with a tactical nuke loaded.

It's true.... it's not a scary situation really. As stated above, carriers and other US battleships more than likely carried nukes for a long time. They may still.. who knows? I don't... nor do I want to, really.

This was a while back. The UK was going into war with all the delusionary gusto of a guy who hadn't been laid in 10 years going on a date.

I don't think that Maggie would have used the nukes either, cause Ike was too clever for the German fleets.

So, like....

...

...

...who cares?

Margaret Thatcher = Adolf Hitler
Tony Blair = Monica Seles

I don't know how the Brits do it, but when the US moves a nuclear weapon, it's an ordeal. I can completely understand not being able to unload them if you have to hurry to deploy.

The standard blurb has changed, too. It's no longer "I can neither confirm nor deny...."

It's

"It is not US policy to arm warships with nuclear weapons."

Which is true. It's one of the least known, and most lasting legacy of the current idiot president's father.

::testing for my TF symbol::

nuclear depth charges??? What good would those be, I can't see how they'd be that much better than a torpedo and a good sonar, or standard depth charges. Just sounds weird to me

who cares, they didn't use them, had no intention of using them, thanks for wasting my time submitter

Newsflash: Warships carry WEAPONS!
SHOCKER!

junge altman:

and the Sheffield (sunk by a frenchmade exocet missle) didn't have them i suppose since its was only a destroyer.

And destroyers never carry depth charges.

/errrr...

D3_WR: nuclear depth charges??? What good would those be

Kills the sub, even if you miss, any other subs in the area, and the destroyer that dropped it.

It has a kill yield of 2.

OMG GUYZ!

I know someone who once carried a gun and it had AMMO IN IT!

i'm wondering how many US nukes are currently in or right around Iraq? I would guess quite a few.

Smallberries: oooh, a +2 depth charge!

nuclear depth charges??? What good would those be, I can't see how they'd be that much better than a torpedo and a good sonar, or standard depth charges. Just sounds weird to me

Conventional torpedoes and depth charges have to be fairly precise to take out a submarine.

A nuke? Not so much. And a small tactical nuke dropped in enough water isn't going to do much damage on the surface, but would likely sink/cripple any sub within a couple miles. Nuke depth charges and torpedoes were standard equipment until Bush I signed them away. (yeah, right.)

icestrider:

It's not news, it's FARK.

The Submitter == Captain Obvious

D3_WR

Capital ships are often protected by an armada of smaller but still fierce war ships. A nuke depth charge can wait until the capital ship gets on top of it and then detonate, suddenly that country only has ground forces.

But seriously, why is this news certainly another hot white girl has gone missing somewhere that we need to know about....

We won! Suck on it Argentina! And with no use of nukes!

Wouldn't have been that much nuclear material. A depth charge probably would have been relatively low-yield, and modern weapons don't have as much fallout as 50's-60's weapons did. Lots of fallout/leftover radioactive material means your fission reaction was inefficient, so newer weapons use more of the materials in the reaction.

We've done all sorts or fun things with little nukes:



I loves me some atomic artillery. Just the thing to use against those 10,000 pesky Soviet tanks rolling over the German countryside.



Awww, it's cute. IIRC, the Davy Crockett was the smallest nuke ever deplaoyed in active service. You could mount this puppy on the back of a jeep. Great in traffic.

import silvia:

A nuke depth charge can wait until the capital ship gets on top of it and then detonate, suddenly that country only has ground forces.

That would be a smart nuke MINE.

BTW what's the name of the US Nuke torpedo? It actually would, probably, sink both the target sub and the firing sub.

One of the things that isn't generally acknowledged was that while Maggie had the balls to go to war in the first place, it wasn't the governement that made the actual decision to commence fire. The Navy was the ultimate arbeiter of who was to recieve fire - although anyone withing 200 miles of the Falklands would automatically come under fire, any argentine military presence anywhere was fair game for the UK military, no holds barred. HG & the JIC did map out a potential invasion strategy of the argentine mainland, after all.

That's what happened to the General Belgrano. Hanging about 250 miles off the falklands while armed with (british-made, so we know how deadly they were) anti-aircraft missiles, she was Torpedoed as a threatening presence to UK military forces.

Would maggie have ordered the use of nukes? Probably, she was a cast-iron biatch of the highest order. Would the Navy? Maybe, if they needed to use them.

Wedge:

I loves me some atomic artillery. Just the thing to use against those 10,000 pesky Soviet tanks rolling over the German countryside.

I can neither confirm nor deny having been there, nor done that.

Actually, the U.S. Army artillery Special Weapons program was supposedly cancelled in late 1991 or early 1992. Of course, they never told me that before I reported to the suddenly non-existant SW school.

I would guess nuclear torpedoes would be helicopter dropped only.

RaoulDuke

i'm wondering how many US nukes are currently in or right around Iraq? I would guess quite a few.

Probably/hopefully none. It's kinda hard for your friendly neighborhood insurgent force to steal a nuke when you keep them on a carrier or sub in international waters hundreds of miles from shore, no matter how hard they try. You can put a nuclear-tipped tomahawk anywhere in the world to within 6 inches in a couple hours, and nuclear Artillery is soooooo 1955.

Why bother keeping it in a war zone? There's no real use for a nuke in that part of the world ("ya know, we're not big enough pariahs in the eyes of the muslim world, and parts of Europe and Asia still think we're ok folks. Let's nuke something and cure that problem.") so there's no sense in keeping one in harms way.

The only nukes in Iraq are whatever toxic mess was left over from the facility that the french built in the early 1980's and the Israeli's "rapidly remodeled" shortly after it went live.

Did argentina have submarines? Hard to use depth charges against a ground target,

CrudeButNotCriminal

I can neither confirm nor deny having been there, nor done that.

Ha! I don't suppose you mean you were actually at the Grable shot, given that it was 52 years ago. As much as I'm glad things aren't quite as nuts as they were, I do wish I could have seen a nuke test first hand.

Actually, the U.S. Army artillery Special Weapons program was supposedly cancelled in late 1991 or early 1992. Of course, they never told me that before I reported to the suddenly non-existant SW school.

Yeah, well, I'm not surprised. I also wouldn't be surprised if we were still messing with stuff like this, or at the least new demolition charges. I'm sure Bush II has a hardon for that kind of thing...

2005-06-28 07:41:00 PM Smallberries
BTW what's the name of the US Nuke torpedo? It actually would, probably, sink both the target sub and the firing sub.

A grok of Globalsecurity yields:

The Mk. 34 depth charge and torpedo variants, with yield of 11KT
The W44 ASROC, yield 1 KT
Mk 90, Mk 101, and Mk 105 depth charges.

Heh. It also tells me that the atomic artillery shells mentioned above are called "AFAP"s. Ones built to be "neutron bombs" were "AFAP-ER"s. Puerile humor may commence...NOW.

(that's Artillery Fired Atomic Projectiles--Enhanced Radiation)

The davy crockett was a dumb weapon. Its range was shorter than the radius of its blast and radiation effects.

unknown host:

Probably/hopefully none. It's kinda hard for your friendly neighborhood insurgent force to steal a nuke when you keep them on a carrier or sub in international waters hundreds of miles from shore, no matter how hard they try. You can put a nuclear-tipped tomahawk anywhere in the world to within 6 inches in a couple hours, and nuclear Artillery is soooooo 1955.



Just a quick question... Nuke tipped within six inches... isn't that kind of useless? Thats just a complete waste of a few hundred grand guidance system IMO.

Spud Boy

Yes, Argentina had subs. Diesel powered, and at least one was sunk by the Royal Navy.

This story doesnt seem very suprising, or relevant to the modern world.

Of course it would have been bad if one of those exocets had sunk a ship with a nuke on it.

And what was Argentinia going to do to the UK? Take all of their landscaping jobs?

Please.

Uh, not scary. Nukes are just big heavy chunks of radioactive material until they're armed. No intent of arming = no nuclear threat. War vessels carry them all the time. Move along.

unknown host:

Yes, Argentina had subs. Diesel powered, and at least one was sunk by the Royal Navy.

Interesting. I wonder if this revelation has anything with the huge re-enactment of the 200th aniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.

/bbc world service addict