When British warships raced southward 25 years ago in response to the Argentine assault on the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, several of those ships carried nuclear weapons. During the ensuing conflict, a number of British ships were sunk, and at least two were reported in various press accounts and subsequently on Web sites to have gone down with nuclear weapons on board.
The ships most often mentioned as having sunk with nukes on hoard were the destroyer Sheffield, ravaged by fire after being struck by an Exocet missile, and the frigate Coventry, sinking in shallow water after being hit by several bombs. But neither ship carried nuclear weapons at the time.
Rather, WE177C nuclear depth bombs-unofficially estimated to be ten-kiloton weapons-were carried south in the Royal Navy's aircraft carriers Invincible and Hermes, and in the missile frigates Brilliant and Broadsword. Sheffield and Coventry did have "surveillance rounds" on board as did other ships, some of which also carried "training rounds." Neither of these devices contained fissionable material-i.e., they were not nuclear weapons. But even the surveillance rounds had been removed from Sheffield and Coventry before they were hit by hostile weapons and sunk.
(The surveillance rounds were used to monitor the environment in shipboard magazines. Once embarked they would not normally be removed from the magazine until disembarkation in port. They were as like live rounds as possible, but without nuclear material.)
The British government's report on nuclear weapons in the task force assembled for the Falklands conflict and a "crib sheet" for ministers reveal that the British task force carried some 30 nuclear weapons (of a total stockpile of "around 40" nuclear depth bombs, those weapons also being carried by Royal Air Force Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft). Of the ships that steamed south for Operation Corporate, Hermes (28,700 tons full load) carried approximately 40 percent of the entire British stockpile of nuclear depth bombs, and Invincible (19,500 tons) had on board some 25 percent, i.e., about 16 and 10 weapons, respectively. The frigates Brilliant and Broadsword had four weapons between them. All of the WE177s were intended to be delivered by antisubmarine warfare helicopters.1
Brilliant transferred her nuclear weapons to a replenishment ship on 16 April and Broadsword on 20 April. Brilliant suffered minor damage from Argentine aircraft cannon fire on 21 May, at which time she was carrying an inert training round. This was apparently the only ship to suffer combat damage action while carrying any type of nuclear device.
Thus, as the warships steamed south in the spring of 1982 and when they were in the operations area, the destroyers and frigates transferred their 600-pound WE177s as well as training and surveillance rounds to the civilian-manned replenishment ships fort Austin, Regent, and Resource. The magazines of those ships provided more protection than those of the destroyers and frigates. Subsequently Invincible transferred her nuclear weapons to the Fort Austin on 2-3 June, and Hermes passed her nukes to the Resource on 26 June for return to Great Britain. (The Fort Austin returned to Britain on 29 June and the Resource on 20 July.)
The movement of the weapons from the two frigates as well as transfers between the carriers and replenishment ships was done by jackstay (i.e., underway replenishment gear). Seven nuclear weapon containers received some external damage in the various transfers between ships, but no weapons were damaged. In what was considered the worst case of damage, a container sustained severe distortion in a door housing: there was no damage to its contents-an inert surveillance round. This suggests that the damage to other containers was slight. After their return to Britain, all of the weapons were examined and found to be safe and serviceable.
Several reasons were given by the government for the removal of the weapons from the surface combatants, not all of which were given equal weight. Related to these reasons, the government clearly stated in Parliament "that there was no question at all of using nuclear weapons in the Falklands dispute."2 The reasons were:
* The government did not want ships carrying nuclear weapons to enter territorial waters around the Falklands or South Georgia as that would he a breach of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, establishing Latin America as a nuclear weapons-free zone.3
* While there was no possibility of a nuclear detonation should a ship carrying nuclear weapons be hit, there was a risk of radioactive contamination if the weapon casing were breached by combat damage.
* It was conceivable-albeit unlikely-that a nuclear weapon could fall into Argentine hands if a British ship with a weapon on hoard were sunk, stranded, or captured.
* The sinking of either or both of the two British aircraft carriers would mark a serious loss to the British stockpile of nuclear antisubmarine weapons.
At the same time, the removal of nuclear weapons from the ships could cause difficulties:
* The principal argument against their removal was the delay it would incur in the ships reaching the South Atlantic. A 24-hour stopover was planned for replenishing the ships at Ascension Island A further 36 hours would he required to unload the nukes by helicopter (no suitable pier facilities were available at Ascension).
* If the weapons were removed at Ascension-which had neither suitable storage facilities nor security provisions-there would he a significantly greater risk of their existence on British ships becoming known as the movement would he visible to anyone in the task force or on the island.
* It was considered possible that at the same time as the Falklands operation a state of tension could develop with the Soviet Union. The removal of the weapons would make the redeployment of the ships for NATO tasks dependent on their first reloading nuclear weapons.
Thus, according to the official report on nuclear weapons aboard Falklands-bound ships, the Ministry of Defence concluded that:
* The risks involved in retaining nuclear weapons with the fleet should he accepted.
* Nuclear weapons should be transferred from the frigates to the larger ships in the task group (i.e., the carriers and replenishment ships).
* The ships with nuclear weapons should be deployed in a manner to ensure there was no breach of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, i.e., none should enter territorial waters of the Falklands.
* In public statements the government should adhere to the "neither confirm nor deny" policy with respect to nuclear weapons.
The WE177 nuclear depth bombs were retained in British warships until 1993. The RAF nuclear weapons were withdrawn from service in 1998. This left the Trident missiles in Britain's four ballistic-missile submarines as the nation's only nuclear weapons.4
1 'Ministry of Defence, "Operation Corporate 1982: The carriage of nuclear weapons by the Task Force assembled for the Falklands campaign" (2005), and "Question and Answer Brief" (2005).
2 "Question and Answer Brief" (Answer No. 3), p. 1.
3 The only concerned nation to sign the treaty but not ratify it was Argentina. Britain was a signatory and ratified the treaty.
4 N. Polmar, "Other Navies: Strike From the Sea," U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, June 2006, pp. 86-87.