"The United Kingdom admits that it carried nuclear weapons during the Falklands War
The United Kingdom has for the first time admitted publicly that some of its warships carried nuclear weapons during the 1982 Falklands Islands conflict, but that it was never their intention to use them in combat. The Defence Ministry has confirmed this information after revealing in Buenos Aires a report that London provided to the Argentine Government on the existence of these weapons in containers stored in some British ships."
Yes a number of ships sailed for the South Atlantic with Nuclear Weapons aboard. Nuclear Depth Charges for Anti Submarine use, carried as standard equipment for frontline NATO Warships at the time. Once London realised the ships had these in their magazines (and by 'London' I mean the Thatcher Government, not the MOD or Navy Command) the order was given for all such weapons to be offloaded when they reached Ascension Island. This was done and the weapons were returned to the UK aboard an RFA to avoid drawing attention. It was appreciated from the start that ships could be lost in combat, and losing them with Nukes aboard would risk environmental contamination. To date the UK hasn't 'lost' any Nuclear weapons, something that puts us ahead of both the USA and USSR...
We would never have used Nuclear Weapons against a non nuclear country, We would have lost the 'moral high ground' at the UN and in the eyes of all our allies. It would have been completely counter productive and not aided the war effort in any way. However, allowing the Argentines to BELIEVE there was a threat to the mainland from Vulcan Bombers operating from Ascension Island was very productive, as the Argentine Air Force withdrew their best air defence assets, the Mirage IIIs from the battle in order to defend against what was a 'phantom' threat to their cities and air bases. You talk a lot about the history of British warfare, perhaps you should read up on the details. We have a long and proud history of deceiving the enemy in battle to divert their resources to where we Aren't and they can do little to stop us. Battle of the River Plate: We made the Germans think we had an Aircraft Carrier battle group including a Battlecruiser waiting off the mouth of the estuary for the Graf Spee (they were two weeks sailing away) instead of just two light cruisers. The German Captain elected to scuttle his ship rather than face them. Job Done!
In Eqypt we managed to 'move' Alexandria Harbour several miles into the desert so that German bombers dropped their bombs harmlessly on sand instead of ships. We made the Suez canal invisible too. Read up on Jasper Maskelyne for further details. Also when we were about to invade Sicily we tricked the Germans into thinking we were about to invade Yugoslavia and Sardinia instead and they redeployed their forces accordingly, weakening the defending garrison.
We had no mandate to attack the Argentine mainland, and did not do so. Allowing an enemy to think all sorts of things is fair game in war, if it serves your own military goals.
I understand the concept of 'all-aspect' very well when it comes to missile seeker heads. The fact remains this capability WAS NEVER USED in combat in 1982. The first time the Sea Harrier pilots used a '9L was on the voyage south. All their training was with '9Gs prior to that, which means they were trained to stern chase a target, and that's what they did. The main advantage of having '9Ls at the time was their much higher reliability rates, meaning fewer misfires, malfunctions, and a much higher kill probability for each shot. Training in the use of the 'all aspect' capability didn't begin for the Sea harrier force until 1983, along with the addition of dual rail launchers to the fleet doubling the number of sidewinders that could be carried on each aircraft:
This was another modification ordered during the war but they weren't ready in time.
Do you understand missile evasion tactics? I suspect not. Missiles travel very fast, usually up to mach 3. Most fighters can only manage mach 2, the Sea Harrier could only do mach 0.9. Seems a slam -dunk doesn't it? The thing is... at mach 3 a missile cannot turn as tightly as a slower aircraft. The same principle is why in a car you have to slow down to turn a corner. If you see a missile launched at you, your best bet is to break hard and try to out turn it, whilst dropping chaff and flares to decoy the missile away from you. If you don't see the missile coming you are dead. A mach 3 missile's best chance is to get to you before you see it and take the aforementioned countermeasures. It's speed helps it close the distance as quickly as possible before you realise you are under attack.
Engaging afterburners doesn't help against heat seeking missiles as it just makes you a more appealing target. Mirages and Daggers in 1982 were at the limit of their range and their pilots knew that if they used their superior speed via the afterburners, they would not have enough fuel to return home. So any speed advantage over the Sea Harriers was negated by geography, making the playing field a bit more level.
