Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War

[edit]

British nuclear weapons and the Falklands War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 10 September 2024, 14:29 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an interesting aspect of the 1982 Falklands War. While nuclear weapons were obviously not used, the British warships that were sent to the South Atlantic carried most of the country's nuclear depth bombs, mainly as it would have taken too long to have offloaded them. However, the British government and military did not seriously consider using nuclear weapons and the War Cabinet never wanted the depth bombs sent south. It was reported during and after the war that a British ballistic missile submarine had been sent to menace Argentina but historians have found no evidence that such a deployment took place. Interestingly, it has emerged in recent years that British Prime Minister Thatcher might have been willing to use nuclear weapons if the war had gone disastrously for her. Historians and international relations experts have also discussed why Argentina decided to invade British territory despite the UK being nuclear power and the broader implications of this.

I developed this article to set the record straight after a really bad article on this topic was developed and rightly deleted in May. It's turned out to be a much more complex and interesting topic than I expected, leading to a wide ranging article. The article was assessed as a GA in mid-June and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in August. I have since further expanded and copy edited the article and am hopeful that it meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

UC

[edit]

Very much enjoying the article, as I expected I would given the nominator. Three general pointers so far:

  1. I think the lead currently errs too much towards brevity rather than completeness -- remember that we should be content for readers to stop at the end of it and have picked up as much information as we really need to give them.
  2. Similarly, I think the prose is just slightly too simplistic in places -- it's very clear, but occasionally it almost reads like an introductory school-book that pulls some punches on detail and general polish.
  3. If we can quickly and easily give a piece of information that answers a reader's question, even if it's not strictly relevant (e.g. "who was that person? When did that happen?"), I think we should. Footnotes might help here, if you feel that the flow would be unduly interrupted.

I hope this is helpful. As ever, please do let me know where I've been unclear or unfair, and I'm very happy to disagree on matters of taste (which is most of this review) without any prejudice.

  • The first sentence (sorry to start so early!) could do with a bit of thought. I don't really like "even though" as WP:WEASEL: most pilots never seriously consider using their ejection seat, even if they have one in the aircraft. Secondly, the word "initially" is slippery -- it could mean anything from "when they were built, years earlier" to "in the opening stages of the conflict".
  • Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: titles in apposition like this, for politicians, are very American: BrE prefers the Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher or Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister.
  • The head of the British military: that was the Queen -- I think we mean the professional head, and I would give his title and name him as Terence Lewin. I'm surprised that we don't get the views (either here or later, except on a related issue) of any other military people -- did Woodward ever express a view, for example, or any of the ships' commanders?
    • Tweaked. None of the sources discuss the views of other military commanders involved in the war other than the commander of the nuclear missile submarine that was alleged to have been deployed to be able to attack Argentina. I recently read Woodward's memoirs from cover to cover and he doesn't note this issue at all, despite providing a very detailed account of his forces operations. I suspect that this is the result of the secrecy around the deployment of British nuclear weapons. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been alleged that a British ballistic missile submarine was sent to the South Atlantic to potentially attack Argentina. This has been denied by senior British government figures as well as the commander of the submarine in question: can we therefore name it as Resolution -- and be clearer that this was reported at the time, rather than just post facto?
  • The British nuclear arsenal did not deter Argentina's invasion of the Falklands on 2 April 1982 due to the commitments the British government had made to not use these weapons.: Hm -- can we know the cause and effect here for sure -- is it impossible that the Argentines considered the British commitment to be unreliable, but also that (e. g.) the missiles wouldn't work, they would be able to intercept them, it was worth the risk, etc etc? Later, we suggest that they were more reassured that the superpowers would stop the British from launching nuclear weapons, which implies that they didn't think Britain's commitment meant all that much.
    Good change -- it was the 1–1 link between the two statements, rather than each of them individually, that was the issue. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Falkland Islands is an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean and a British Overseas Territory. There has been a long-running sovereignty dispute over the islands between Argentina and the British government. : as it's now over forty years later, I would couch this in 1982 terms. Put another way, if the dispute gets settled tomorrow, we shouldn't have to change this sentence.
    • Given that the dispute is still ongoing and the war didn't resolve it, I think that this wording is OK. It also helps to explain the post-war squabbling over whether the UK had stationed nuclear weapons in the Falklands. If the dispute is ever resolved, I'd be happy to update this! Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My issue is that, when you think about it, this material isn't actually relevant. It isn't important to what happened in 1982 that the Falklands are a BOT in 2024, or that there has been a long-running dispute in 2024 -- it matters what the status of that dispute was in 1982. I think we'd be on safer ground to talk about some of the key developments in Anglo-Argentine relations and the Falklands dispute in the decades preceding the war. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've tweaked the wording a bit here. The history of the dispute isn't really relevant to this article: what I think is significant is to briefly indicate that there was a long running dispute (to help explain to readers why such an unlikely and now somewhat little known war took place) and that the dispute continues given it's relevant to the section of the article covering developments since the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The British government decided to liberate the Falklands: consider retake as more neutral (from the Argentine perspective, they were de-liberating them).
  • This campaign was very risky for the British and required the deployment of substantial military forces at a great distance from the UK.: a bit woolly, I think -- we probably should have said how far the Falklands were from the UK earlier, so "a great distance" is both vague and, in an ideal world, unnecessary. Similarly, "substantial military forces" -- by 2024 British standards, yes, but by almost anyone else's it was a pretty small operation, at least initially. Aren't military campaigns inherently risky, especially for the people taking part? Do we mean militarily risky (they might have lost) or politically? I think there's something here, but it would be worth recouching it in terms of what made this campaign more risky than others.
    • I've tweaked the wording here to make it clearer: in short, the British forces weren't significantly superior to the Argentine forces, especially due to the distance the operation was conducted from the UK. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Numerically, perhaps, but the land forces at least were definitely superior in terms of training and equipment. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the air and naval forces were not and the sources agree, including those cited here, this made the war highly risky. Woodward also stressed how risky the campaign was in his memoirs on purely logistical grounds given that he wouldn't have been able to maintain his fleet off the Falklands during the winter. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This made the UK the third country to deploy these weapons: after...? I know it's not particularly relevant, but if we're going to make readers ask the question, it seems fair to answer it given that we can do so very quickly.
  • The Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines were equipped with 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme.: a total of 100 or 100 each? MOS:FIGURES would like "four" in figures for consistency.
  • Most of the American-owned warheads were assigned to British Army units in Germany.: I think a very brief comment on the British Army of the Rhine and what it was doing in Germany would be useful here.
    • I don't think it would hurt to explain that they were intended to be used against the Warsaw Pact in the event of a Soviet invasion of western Europe (or at least to deter that from happening), but not a major issue -- the current framing works. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:58, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was legal for the UK to deploy nuclear weapons to other locations in the South Atlantic Ocean.: from my very limited reading on this topic, it's a tricky question as to whether a given breach of a treaty is technically illegal. Suggest "it would not have breached the treaty...".
  • Nuclear powered ships: hyphenate as a compound modifier.

More to follow. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • the strong international norm against the use of nuclear weapons which had developed due to their devastating effects - often labelled the "nuclear taboo: MOS:DASH -- use either a spaced endash or an unspaced emdash here.
  • recapture the islands by force: is there any other way to recapture some islands?
    • Yes, the British could have blockaded them or similar to force the Argentinians to give them up. For instance, the British seriously considered landing troops on an isolated part of West Falkland and building a military airfield instead of attacking the main Argentine forces on East Falkland as part of a strategy to sustain a blockade and intensify diplomatic pressure on Argentina. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's still using force, as your wording (perhaps inadvertently) shows -- either it wouldn't have been recapturing them (as opposed to having them returned 'voluntarily'), or it would have been by force. However, if you want to differentiate what happened from e.g. a blockade, you could say by invasion or similar? UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Michael Quinlan, who had noted in a 2013 BBC interview that Thatcher had told him after the war...: MOS:SAID: noted endorses the factual accuracy of this, which we can't do -- stated or similar needed.
  • 'surveillance rounds' or 'training rounds'. The 'surveillance rounds' : MOS:' is unclear on scare quotes, but generally doesn't like them. Suggest munitions termed "surveillance rounds" or "training rounds", which sits better with that guideline and MOS:WORDSASWORDS.
  • While some of the nuclear depth bombs could have been offloaded from warships at Portsmouth, this could not be done covertly: why would it need to be done covertly -- anything more than the obvious not wanting to tell the enemy what you're doing?
    • It was due to the British policy of not disclosing the whereabouts of nuclear weapons - the next para notes that this was a significant consideration at the time. I've added some material earlier in the article on this to help provide context. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • concerns among some senior Royal Navy officers: a little bit weasel-y -- can we be more precise as to who and how many, or is this all "I heard that some admirals were unhappy"? Might not be much we can do here.
  • If the issue was raised in Parliament, the government would have confirmed that nuclear weapons would not be used but not comment on whether the warships were carrying them.: suggest decided to confirm or similar -- we can't know for sure that they would have followed through with the plan.
    • This reflects the wording in the source that "there would be an unequivocal affirmation that nuclear weapons would not be used in the present context" if it was raised in Parliament. I've tweaked the wording a bit here. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a proposal made by Foreign Secretary Francis Pym: outside journalism, more usual in BrE was "the Foreign Secretary, Francis Pym".
  • I think we should indicate the publisher of Proceedings in the citation (the US Naval Institute). Is it ever cited as Proceedings of the US Naval Institute?
    The United States Naval Institute Proceedings began in 1874 as The Papers and Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, though "Papers and Proceedings" shortened to "Proceedings" by 1879. Some early issues were titled "The Record of the United States Naval Institute" even as the volumes containing them had "Proceedings" in the title instead. The title permuted to "United States Naval Institute Proceedings" in 1907. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Hawkeye7 notes, it's usually referred to as just Proceedings. I've added the publisher details. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Hawkeye's comment as suggesting the opposite course of action -- it might be referred to in the field as Proceedings, but its actual title is United States Naval Institute Proceedings, and we should use that. In my own line of study, we have plenty of arcane journal abbreviations: open up any classical journal and you'll see BMCR, Arch. Eph., TPhS and so on, but per WP:NOTPAPER and WP:MTAU we spell them out in full so that they are accessible to readers outside the discipline. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a lot of use here of the British official history of the war. I wouldn't go so far as to call that unreliable, but it's definitely not fully independent. Is there anything we can do to corroborate it from other work?
    • The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently. Consistent with this practice, the only restriction Freedman notes in the book's introduction is that he was limited in what he could write about on a few matters concerning intelligence - this restriction usually applies only to material on intelligence collection operations or practices that remain active. The book was published by an academic press and has been widely cited by other works on this issue as well as the Falklands War more broadly, including some that are critical of the British government's actions. All the reviews I've seen have been positive: I don't think that provisos would be needed unless multiple reviews have judged the book less than fully reliable or independent. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • The UK is one of the western countries where official historians are actually almost entirely independent of government and able to write about almost anything and reach conclusions independently: I'm not disagreeing, but would be interested in some reading on that topic -- I'm reminded of an interview where (I think) Andrew Marr protested that nobody at the BBC had ever told him which questions to ask, to be told that if they thought they needed to tell him, they wouldn't have picked him for the job in the first place. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • [1] is a useful brief overview of British official histories, and notes that while there are some concerns over the genre the standard in the UK these days is good. It describes Freedman's official history which this article cites as being "acclaimed". Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          I know that's a blog, but I would definitely still take caution here -- it's good that we're not talking about works that are explicitly censored, but if the British government is choosing who writes the book and (indirectly) the sources to which they have access, we can't call the work fully independent. That doesn't mean we should throw it out altogether when it's known to be a good work of scholarship, but I would be looking for corroborating sources where possible. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already have checked every available reference, many of which cite Freedman. Hennessy and Jinks re-assessed some matters that Freedman considered and ended up largely agreeing with him (Hennessy is an expert on British nuclear weapons policies and deployments). The main discrepancy I found is in relation to Thatcher's possible actions as covered in the last two paras of the 'During the war' section, where I've sought to explain the different views and conclusions. These differences are largely due to Sir Michael Quinlan's revelations after the official history was published. The Argentinian Government also has a different interpretation of the Treaty of Tlatelolco from Freedman and other historians, and I've also sought to cover this. The 'British nuclear weapons policies' section is also an example of where I've provided accounts by different historians on an issue Freedman has covered. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more -- in general, where I haven't replied above, I'm more-or-less happy -- it's obvious that you've thought about the issues, usually before I have, and done your due diligence on them.

  • There is no evidence to support claims that one of these submarines was sent to the South Atlantic.: I don't think we actually put it quite this strongly in the article, so I'm going to cry [citation needed] here. We've outlined a few good reasons to believe that it wasn't, and that Freedman couldn't find any in the archives, but neither of those are quite the same thing.
    • Freedman states that he couldn't find any documentation of such a deployment and dismisses it as a result and Hennessy and Jinks reached the same conclusion, including after interviewing the relevant submarine captain and his commander. As such, I think that this wording is an accurate summary. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It might be accurate, but it needs to be verifiable, too. "Archival evidence" and "evidence" are not the same thing, nor does the fact that one researcher could not find something demonstrate that it does not exist. More seriously, we've WP:SYNTHed our way from "here are two sources who say that X probably isn't true" to "no reason exists to believe that X is true", and that's not workable. We either need a less cautious source or a more cautious phrasing, I think.
        Better, but do either of our sources actually say "historians [in general, not just the present author] have found no evidence"? Either way, we need to cite that, as it isn't quite what we say and cite in the article. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were all judged to be "safe and serviceable" following inspections after they arrived back in the UK: consider dropping the quotes per MOS:SCAREQUOTES.
  • the conservative MP: needs a capital, as we mean the party, not (just) the state of mind.
  • the Labour Party member of parliament Tam Dalyell who claimed to have learned this from an unnamed Conservative member of parliament: I would cut the Party for consistency and to fit normal usage.
  • In 2005 a psychoanalyst who had regularly met with French President François Mitterrand during the time of the Falklands War claimed that he had told her that Thatcher had threatened: literally, a lot of he-said, she-said here -- I must admit to being dubious. More importantly, the Guardian doesn't vouch for this claim, and nobody else in the quality press seems to have even picked it up. I would be inclined to cut this, given the circumstances -- WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies, I think, as this is a fairly explosive (sorry) claim resting on pretty flimsy evidence. I know we don't endorse it, but by reporting it, we're giving it some credence as a possibility, a "some people say" etc.
    • I agree that it appears to be nonsense, but Hennessy and Jinks considered the claim worth discussing and evaluating in their book, so I think that this should be included. Both these authors are experts on the history of the British nuclear weapons arsenal. There's also a long-running myth that France was recalcitrant in helping the UK counter Exocet missiles during the Falklands War, which presumably this claim relates to (in reality the French government provided the British with considerable assistance to stop Argentina getting more of these missiles during the war). Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • noting that it is not clear what 'codes' for Exocet missiles she was referring to: double quote needed, but see above.
  • I'm going to need a citation that that Vulcan took part in the Falklands War. Suggest giving its number.
    • I've added a reference. The aircraft's serial number would be a bit confusing if not explained in this context, and I'd prefer to omit it given it's not relevant to the subject of the article (the photo is to show what a Vulcan looks like). Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • nuclear weapons-capable: endash, not hyphen, needed here (MOS:DASH)
  • Officials dismissed the wartime speculation over this issue: officials on which side(s)?
  • This led to Australian authorities declining permission for Invincible to be repaired in a dry dock during 1983.: some areas of Australia are nuclear-free zones; was this one of them?
    • All the sources are oddly vague about the details here, but it would have almost certainly have been the Captain Cook Dry Dock in Sydney (as this is the only large naval dry dock in the country), which I think was a nuclear free zone. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I think it was -- worth adding, as otherwise it's a bit confusing as to why Australia would have had such an issue (readers might know that New Zealand doesn't allow nuclear weapons in its territorial waters, but Australia has never had such a prohibition). UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • T.V. Paul: we normally put a space after both initials.
  • Consider MOS:CONFORMing "nonnuclear" to "non-nuclear", in line with usage elsewhere in the article.
  • Royal United Services Institute fellow Jeremy Stocker : false title.
  • In 1989 the British international relations expert: two things here. Firstly, he's the first person we've listed as an expert, which seems odd -- weren't all the other admirals, scientists, historians and so on experts? Secondly and more importantly, he was also a Labour/SDP MP, and there was a pretty serious debate going on in those circles about nuclear disarmament -- it's not as if he was a detached commentator on the matter.
    • Tweaked here. The section is about people's views, so whether they're detached or not doesn't seem particularly relevant as long as readers know where they're coming from. An interesting feature of the debate over nuclear weapons, especially during the Cold War, is the cross-overs between politics and technical expertise on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed - no problem with including him, but readers need to be able to place the quotation in proper context. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • He noted that...}: MOS:SAID -- this isn't a statement of fact. I'm most likely to go for a run if it's sunny, but it's still possible that I might stay in on a nice day if I'm feeling a bit lazy.
  • Luard gets a lot of airtime in his area of the article, and is double-cited with the official history: where does that second citation come in here?
    • I've removed the third sentence now that this has been covered earlier in the article. The second reference is to an earlier work by Freedman where he discussed Luard's views, not the official history. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ward Wilson is likewise not exactly detached: he runs an anti-nuclear pressure group.
  • "A Critical Examination of "the Myth of Nuclear Deterrence"".: single quotes within double quotes.
  • Make sure you capitalise e.g. Sheffield in the titles of cited works.
    Title parameter of note 56. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under British command and control procedures, the Prime Minister is the only person who can authorise the use of nuclear weapons: this is cited to a 2024 page -- can we confirm that this was also the case in 1982 (it was, but our source doesn't strictly prove that).
  • The titles of cited works should be capitalised consistently, at least within source types (that is, all books the same way, all journals the same way...)
    MOS:CONFORMTITLE advises the opposite approach. Is there a particular reason to divert from it here? UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that guideline provides bad advice here. It seems unjustified to fiddle with the titles of works to deviate from what the author or the journal/book's editor has selected. As it's only a guideline, I'd prefer to stick with the original capitalisation. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, but you're right that it's only a guideline, and I'm not at the point of opposing over something which makes very little difference to readers. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's my lot for now -- as ever, please do let me know where I've been unclear or unfair, and take (almost) all comments as suggestions rather than hard demands. UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Placeholder. Please ping ping me once UC starts to run out of steam. Gog the Mild (talk) 12: 09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: most of what I've got left is pretty small stuff, so don't wait on my account. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recusing to review.

  • "defended only by a small party of Royal Marines." Is it possible to give a number?
  • "The Argentine forces there were defeated and surrendered on 14 June 1982 following a series of fierce battles." IMO this would read better if it were recast into chronological order.
    • It already is. The idea of this section is to give readers an understanding of the nature of the war rather than its exact chronology given the issues the article covers are more relevant to what the war was like than its course (most of the key decisions covered in the article took place before there was any fighting, for instance). Our article on the war covers the chronology well. Nick-D (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is something like 'Following a series of fierce battles the Argentine forces there were defeated and surrendered on 14 June 1982.' Thus putting the three things referred to in chronological order.
Done Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The size of this force peaked". Is "force" the right word? 'stockpile', 'arsenal'?
  • " A total of 100 warheads fitted to standard Polaris missiles and 35 fitted to missiles that had been upgraded through the Chevaline programme were carried by the Royal Navy's four ballistic missile submarines." I don't see how this is supported by the source cited.
  • "In addition, the British Armed Forces also had". You don't need both "In addition" and "also".
  • "the WE.177A nuclear depth bombs nuclear depth bombs".
  • "but had still not ratified it at the time of the Falklands War." Suggest deleting "still".
  • "the South Atlantic as well as their territorial waters." Maybe 'the South Atlantic or their territorial waters'?
  • "The nuclear depth bombs on board Brilliant were transferred to RFA Fort Austin". Perhaps a brief explanation of what type and size of ship Fort Austin was.
  • "The weapons on board Invincible were transferred to Fort Austin on 2–3 June." Where, approximately, did this take place?
  • "Fort Austin returned to the UK on 29 June." Left the fleet to return starting on this date, or arrived back in the UK on this date? Is it known which port she arrived at?
  • Similarly for Resource.
  • "Seven of the containers holding active and inert nuclear weapons were damaged". Is the total number of bombs they contained known?
  • "The surveillance rounds were inert WE.177As". What was it that caused them to be "inert"? Did they contain nuclear material?
  • "The Conservative MP was likely the backbencher Alan Clark." If the article is written in UK English then "likely" → 'probably'.
  • "an unnamed Conservative member of parliament. The Conservative MP ... suggested that the conservative MP who told Dalyell". Conservative or conservative?
  • "who had been the Flag Officer Submarines." Why the upper-case initial letters?
  • "In these letters he had observed". Delete "had".
  • "He also said though that the revelations had not harmed the relationship between Argentina and the UK." Delete "though".
  • Most of the last paragraph of "Nuclear weapons policies" either duplicates material in "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" or would fit better into that section.
    • Are you referring to the para that starts with "The Argentine government was aware"? This covers the facts of the Argentinian Government's decision making, of which there isn't any disagreement over. The "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" section then covers various commentators and experts views. I'd prefer to retain this structure to keep the material about what happened separate from the material covering views of why this happened. I've trimmed the "Commentary on nuclear deterrence" though to avoid a bit of duplication - I think that this also helps clarify the structure of this section, with the first para discussing views on why the UK didn't use nuclear weapons in these particular circumstances and the second para discussing views on whether the non-use means that nuclear weapons will not be used in any circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "failing to coerce a nation with a weaker military." The source given does not mention Argentina, or any country, having a weaker military.
The source given still does not mention Argentina, or any country, having a weaker military.
Oops, I didn't make that edit. Now done. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Argentina was believed to have three air-launched variants of these missiles remaining". Is that a total of three missiles, or an unknown number of missiles split between three variants?
  • "if the aircraft carriers were struck by Argentine Exocet missiles". Could there be a brief in line explanation of what an "Exocet missile" is.

Classy work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three comebacks above. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Sorry for the slow response here. I've replied above. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Hi Nick-D, my comments:

  • Add archive URLs for

Refs #2, #5, #11, #23, #28, #30, #49-50, #52, #54, #61; Freedman 1989, Iacono 2022, Polmar 2007? Or you could just run the IA bot and it will archive all these for you. The sites hosting these sources will never go down in all probability, but their URLs may change and prudence never hurts anyways.

Support from Hawkeye7

[edit]

I think what you have done with this article is awe-inspiring! I note that 5% of the content has been added this month. A few comments:

  • "Prior to the Falklands War the British government had also provided a commitment not to use its nuclear weapons against countries that did not possess these weapons." My understanding is that the UK gave an undertaking that it "will not use, or threaten to use, nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT" or "in material breach of the NPT" (emphasis mine). Argentina had not signed the NPT. Consider adding that it did not do so until 1995. The reader might infer too much into the fact that Argentina did not have nuclear weapons; at the time, but there was grave concern about Argentina's nuclear weapons program. [2]
    • This is covered by the second para of the 'Pre-war' section. The sources note that while technically Argentina wasn't a non-nuclear power the UK treated it as such. I've added some extra material on Argentina; the sources don't note that the British had any concern over its nuclear program during the war. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader might also infer that this was some solemn undertaking by the UK government, but it modified it in 1990 in response to the threat of chemical and biological weapons from Iraq, so the current stance is that "Security assurances extended to other countries by the UK are now subject to review 'if the future threat of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological capabilities, or emerging technologies that could have a comparable impact, makes it necessary". [3]
    • The article covers what the relevant British policy was at the time of the war. I've added material to the lead on the relevant international norms (it's striking that the Cold War era British military didn't even consider using these weapons). Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the single quotes around "nuclear taboo" to double quotes?
  • "conventional British forces could not be deployed at such a distance from the UK". There was a tiny garrison and an ice patrol vessel on station. Suggest "sufficient conventional forces to recapture the islands by force".

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Noswall59

[edit]

Just a very quick comment as I don't have time to review this in full. The article (very interesting!) mentions Thatcher's purported views on using nuclear weapons in the war, citing Hennessy and Jinks (2016) and Quinlan's interview (2013). Have you checked Charles Moore's biography of Thatcher? I think volume 1 looked at the Falklands War. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Harry

[edit]

Ooh, really interesting subject! Placeholder for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: can I please check whether you'll be leaving comments here? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. I was waiting for you to wrap up UC's very thorough review. I can't promise anything ttat thorough but give me 24 hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • though as it had not ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or the Treaty of Tlatelolco at the time of the Falklands War bit of a complicated sentence.
  • The paragraph starting The Argentine government was aware does not read very well, and we can find a better way to start a sentence in an FA than "this was due to".
  • I worry that we have quite a few Easter egg links: "escalated in 1982", "first tested", "task force of warships"
    • I've changed the first and tweaked the third, but I think that the other one is OK given it's about the first British nuclear test which there's no need to specifically name in this article (especially as the name of the test is fairly obscure). Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was due to the strength of the "nuclear taboo" we've covered this above (almost word for word) and "this was due to" can almost always just be replaced with "because"
  • Is there anything more on the Vulcan bombing raids? I believe one long-range flight was conducted with the express purpose of demonstrating Britain's ability to deliver a (potential) nuclear bomb over that distance. The article skims over the role of the Vulcans quite briefly which surprised me a little but possibly because it's the only prior knowledge I have of the subject matter.
    • I haven't seen any sources saying that. The Vulcan force operated almost exclusively in the nuclear role before the war and this was frequently practiced, but didn't do extremely long range flights as their air-to-air refuelling capability had been removed. Once this was re-added the Vulcans practiced Operation Black Buck over the North Atlantic, but all the sources I've seen have said this was done with conventional bombs. As Sechser & Fuhrmann are the only source that notes a possible a nuclear connection to the Black Buck raids (while noting that the British never intended to use the Vulcans as nuclear bombers during the Falklands War) I don't think that there's much more that can be said. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: many thanks for this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/British_nuclear_weapons_and_the_Falklands_War/archive1&oldid=1244474853"