Aftermath of the Falklands War

Remains of a helicopter shot down in South Georgia Island during Falklands War. (Photo taken 1999)

The aftermath of the 1982 Falklands War (Guerra de Malvinas in Spanish) between the United Kingdom and Argentina saw an impact upon world geopolitics, the local political culture in Argentina and the UK, military thought, medical treatment, and the lives of those who were directly involved in the war.

Political aftermath

Diplomatic relations between the UK and Argentina were not restored until 1989 under a formula which put the issue of sovereignty to one side (the sovereignty umbrella) and established a framework within which further talks on matters of mutual interest could be held^[1]

Argentina

The Argentine loss of the war led to ever-larger protests against the military regime and is credited with giving the final push to drive out the military government that had overthrown Isabel Perón in 1976 and perpetrated the crimes of the Dirty War. Galtieri was forced to resign and elections were held on 30 October 1983 and a new president, Raúl Alfonsín, the Radical Civic Union (UCR) party candidate, took office on 10 December 1983, defeating Italo Luder, the candidate for the Justicialist Party (Peronist movement). In the long term the debacle concluded the periodical intervention of the Argentine military in the politics since the 1930s.

In 2009, Argentine authorities in Comodoro Rivadavia ratified a decision made by authorities in Río Grande, Tierra del Fuego (which, according to Argentina, have authority over the islands) charging 70 officers and corporals with inhumane treatment of conscript soldiers during the war.^[2] "We have testimony from 23 people about a soldier who was shot to death by a corporal, four other former combatants who starved to death, and at least 15 cases of conscripts who were staked out on the ground", Pablo Vassel, under-secretary of human rights in the province of Corrientes, told Inter Press Service News Agency.^[3] There are claims that false testimonies were used as evidence in accusing the Argentine officers and NCOs and Vassel had to step down from his post as under-secretary of human rights of Corrientes in 2010.^[4]

The Falkland Islands

The Falkland Islands remained a self-governing British overseas territory, but shortly after the war the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 granted the Islanders British citizenship (replacing British Dependent Territories citizenship), strengthening the link between the Islanders and the UK.

The economy also benefited indirectly from UK military investment and directly from development of fisheries. The future of the Falkland Islanders' link to the UK has been more certain as a result of the war, and the Islands' government remains committed to self-determination and British sovereignty. The most serious effect of the war on the Islanders was that three women were killed by a Royal Navy shell fired on their house from offshore; no Islanders were killed by the Argentine forces.

United Kingdom

For the UK, the war cost 255 men, six ships (ten others suffered varying degrees of battle damage), 34 aircraft and £2.778 billion,^[5] but the campaign was considered a great victory for the United Kingdom. The months following the war saw the popularity of the Conservative Government increase, with some attributing this rise to the aftermath of the war^[6][7] with others suggesting that the rise in popularity was due to an increase in economic optimism, with the war increasing productivity by 3%.^[8] The war did however cause several members of the government to resign, including the Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington, the most recent time that a UK government minister resigned openly in response to a failure of his department (in not anticipating the war).

Criticism was levelled at Ted Rowlands, a former junior foreign minister in the preceding government, who disclosed in Parliament in April 1982 that the British had broken the Argentine diplomatic codes. As the same code machines were used by the Argentine military, this disclosure immediately served to deny British access to valuable intelligence. This, and other responses to parliamentary questions, and leaks of information to the BBC has been alleged by historian Hugh Bicheno to be a deliberate attempt to undermine the Thatcher government on the part of a variety of individuals who had a vested interest in its fall.^[9] There is some debate as to the accuracy of the claims regarding Ted Rowlands. Mark Urban in his book UK Eyes Alpha makes reference to a "figure intimate with the workings of GCHQ" who suggested that Rowlands's comment had no noticeable effect.^[10]

Ultimately, the successful conclusion of the war gave a noticeable fillip to British patriotic feeling, with the mobilisation of national identity encapsulated in the so-called "Falklands Factor". Since the failure of the 1956 Suez campaign, the end of Empire and the economic decline of the 1970s which culminated in the Winter of Discontent, Britain had been beset by uncertainty and anxiety about its international role, status and capability. With the war successfully concluded, Thatcher was returned to power with an increased Parliamentary majority and felt empowered to press ahead with the economic readjustments of Thatcherism.

A second major effect was a reaffirmation of the special relationship between the US and UK. Both Reagan and Weinberger (his Secretary of Defense) were appointed honorary Knights Commander of the Order of the British Empire (KBE) for their help in the campaign, but the more obvious result was the common alignment of Britain and the USA in a more confrontational foreign policy against the Soviet bloc, sometimes known as the Second Cold War.

In 2007 the British government expressed regrets over the deaths on both sides in the war.^[11] Margaret Thatcher was quoted as saying "in the struggle against evil... we can all today draw hope and strength" from the Falklands victory,^[12] while former Argentinian President Néstor Kirchner claimed while in office that the UK won a colonial victory and vowed that the islands would one day return to Argentine sovereignty. He qualified this, however, with an affirmation that force could never again be used in an attempt to bring this about.^[13]

USA and Latin America

The United States' reputation in parts of Latin America^[14] was damaged because of the perception that it had broken the Rio Treaty (Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance or TIAR) by providing the UK with military supplies.^[15]

In September 2001 the President of Mexico Vicente Fox cited the Falklands War as proof of the failure of the TIAR.

Regarding the attitude of the Latin American governments, K.J. Holsti presents another sight of the South American dilemma:^[16] "While South American governments (except Chile) publicly supported Argentina in its conflict with Great Britain, in private many governments were pleased with the outcome of the war. Argentina's bellicosity against Chile over the Beagle Channel problem ... [its] foreign intervention ([in] Bolivia and Nicaragua) ... and [its] propounded geopolitical doctrines that were seen in other countries as threatening to them". So, according to David R. Mares, "Brazilian military analysts worried about the problems of having a successful and belligerent Argentina as neighbour".^[17]

For Chile, engaged with Argentina in a long-standing territorial dispute over the Cape Horn islands, the outcome of the war averted a planned Argentine military invasion of Chile^[18] and made possible the Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1984 between Chile and Argentina.^[19]

The visit of Pope John Paul II

In May 1982, Pope John Paul II carried out a long-scheduled visit to the United Kingdom. In view of the crisis it was decided that this should be balanced^[20] with an unscheduled trip to Argentina in June.^[21] It is contended that his presence and words spiritually prepared Argentines for a possible defeat, contrary to the propaganda issued by the Junta.^[22] He returned to Argentina in 1987 after the return of democratic government.^[23]

Military analysis

Militarily, the Falklands conflict remains the largest air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the Second World War. As such, it has been the subject of intense study by military analysts and historians. The most significant "lessons learned" include the vulnerability of surface ships to anti-ship missiles and submarines, the challenges of coordinating logistical support for a long-distance projection of power, and reconfirmation of the role of tactical air power, including the use of helicopters.

Vulnerability of surface ships

In his book The Price of Admiralty, military historian Sir John Keegan noted that the brief conflict showed the irremediable vulnerability of surface ships to anti-ship missiles, and, most importantly, to submarines: despite the seemingly limited consequences of the war, it confirmed the dominance of the submarine in naval warfare. This is especially so, Keegan argues, because submarines are far less vulnerable than aircraft to counterattack, being able to approach and destroy their targets with almost complete impunity.^[24]

However, many prominent naval tacticians have recently argued this point; the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano was the result of a modern nuclear-powered submarine hunting a pre-World War II ship with no anti-submarine capabilities, and the British ships sunk by the Argentinian Air Force were acceptable casualties in view of the fact that they were screening forces, either for the British aircraft carriers in the cases of HMS Sheffield and even Atlantic Conveyor, or for the amphibious landing forces as with HMS Coventry, HMS Ardent and HMS Antelope.^[25]

Role of air power

Neither side achieved total air supremacy; nonetheless, air power proved to be of critical importance during the conflict, due to the isolated, rough landscape of the Falklands in which the mobility of land forces was restricted. Air strikes were staged against ground, sea and air targets on both sides, and often with clear results. All of the UK losses at sea were caused by aircraft or missile strikes (by both the Argentine Air Force and Naval Aviation). The French Exocet missile proved its lethality in air-to-surface operations, leading to retrofitting of most major ships with Close-in weapon systems (CIWS).

The air war in the Falklands vindicated the UK decision to maintain at least the STOVL aircraft carriers after the retirement of HMS Ark Royal. The domination of air power in major naval engagements was demonstrated, along with the usefulness of carriers and it proved the small but manoeuvrable Sea Harrier as a true fighter. Sea Harriers shot down 21 aircraft with no air-to-air losses themselves, although six were lost to ground fire and accidents.

It should be noted that the disparity in figures, with the Argentine fighters failing to shoot down a single Sea Harrier, can be explained by several factors, including limited fighter control that was provided by British warships in San Carlos Water, the then almost unparalleled Blue Fox radar, and the extreme manoeuvrability of the Sea Harrier. Additionally the British had the latest AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles, while the only Argentine planes with air-to-air missiles for self-defence were the Mirages. The AIM-9Ls had a much wider angle of engagement than the earlier versions employed by the Argentines, which could only effectively engage the rear quarter of an enemy aircraft. The only advantage of the Argentine jets was their higher maximum speed, but Argentine pilots could not benefit from this unless they risked running out of fuel, as was seen in the first air combat of the war when a Mirage IIIEA was forced to attempt a landing at Stanley.

The importance of Airborne Early Warning (AEW) was shown. The Royal Navy had effectively no over-the-horizon radar capability. This was hastily rectified after the war, with Sea King helicopters fitted with radomes containing a variant of the Nimrod ASW aircraft's Searchwater radar. These first travelled south after the war on the brand new HMS Illustrious, sister ship to Invincible (R05).

The usefulness of helicopters in combat, logistic, and casevac operations was confirmed.

Logistics

The logistical capability of the UK armed forces was stretched to the limit in order to mount an amphibious operation so far from a land base, in mountainous islands with few roads. After the war much work was done to improve both the logistical and amphibious capability of the Royal Navy. Task force commander Rear Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward referred to the conflict as "a lot closer run than many would care to believe", reflecting the naval and military belief that few people understood—or understand—the extent to which the logistical dimension made the war a difficult operation for the UK.^[26]

The ships of the task force could only remain on station for a limited time in the worsening southern hemisphere winter. With such a high proportion of the Royal Navy's surface fleet engaged, or lost in combat, there were few units available for northbound traffic. At the core of the fleet, Invincible could possibly have been replaced by the hastily prepared Illustrious or the loaned USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2),^[27] but there was no replacement available for Hermes, the larger of the two British carriers. Woodward's strategy, therefore, required the land war to be won before Hermes, in particular, succumbed to the harsh environment. Woodward called the operation "a damned close-run thing", quoting the Duke of Wellington after the Battle of Waterloo.

Special forces

The usefulness of special forces units was reaffirmed. British special forces destroyed many Argentine aircraft (notably in the SAS raid on Pebble Island) and carried out highly informative intelligence-gathering operations. Contrary to popular understanding, the Argentine special forces also patrolled hard, in appalling climatic conditions, against a professional enemy and showed that they could sometimes get the upper hand.^[28]

Other lessons learned

Nylon was shown to be a poor choice for fabric in uniforms, as it is more flammable than cotton and also melts with heat. Burning nylon adheres to the skin, causing avoidable casualties.

Impact on the Royal Navy

Strained by two oil crises (1973 and 1979), the United Kingdom's government desired to cut defence spending in line with the rest of Europe. Many former British possessions in Africa and Asia had gained independence from the UK by the 1980s. Due to this decolonisation, successive British governments investigated closing British overseas bases and reducing the UK's armed forces in the belief that capabilities such as a blue water navy were no longer required. The Conservative government's Defence Secretary John Nott produced a white paper in 1981 proposing major cuts for the navy in the next ten years (the army and the RAF had already been tailored for NATO.)^[29]

Denis Healey, the Defence Secretary in 1966, once said that aircraft carriers were required only for operations regarding 'landing or withdrawal of troops against sophisticated opposition outside range of land-based air cover'. When the last conventional carrier in the Royal Navy, HMS Ark Royal, was decommissioned in 1978, the pro-carrier lobby succeeded in acquiring light carriers (euphemistically christened 'through deck cruisers') equipped with VTOL Sea Harriers as well as helicopters, justified by the fact that one of their primary roles was anti-submarine warfare.^[30] John Nott's defence review concluded that anti-submarine defence would be performed more cheaply by a smaller number of destroyers and frigates. The carrier HMS Hermes was therefore to be scrapped and HMS Invincible sold to Australia. Under the review, the Royal Navy was focused primarily on anti-submarine warfare under the auspices of NATO. Any out-of-area amphibious operations were considered unlikely. The entire Royal Marines was in jeopardy of being disbanded and the sale of HMS Intrepid and HMS Fearless was mooted.^[31]

In 1980, low funding caused many ships to be in harbour for months due to lack of spare parts and fuel. The largest cut in the Royal Navy's conventional forces led to the resignation of the Navy Minister Keith Speed in 1981. Sea battles, mass convoys, amphibious landings, and coastal bombardments were considered obsolete in the second half of the 20th century.^[29] The head of the admiralty, First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Henry Leach, was still fighting the cuts in the Ministry of Defence together with the Chief of Defence Staff, who by chance, was also a naval officer — Admiral of the Fleet Sir Terence Lewin.

At the onset of the crisis, First Sea Lord Sir Henry Leach was summoned to brief the Prime Minister. He claimed that Britain was able to recapture the islands, and that it should be done. "Since here was a clear, imminent threat to British overseas territory that could only be reached by sea, what the hell was the point in having a Navy if it was not used for this sort of thing?".^[32] Aware of the necessity for speed, Leach had already given orders for the ships of a potential task force to be prepared for deployment. On 2 April, at a briefing at the House of Commons, Leach advised the Prime Minister that a task force was necessary and could sail within 48 hours. Lewin, who was forced to return from a scheduled visit to New Zealand, also impressed on the War Cabinet that the primary objective for the United Kingdom should be: "to bring about the withdrawal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands, and the re-establishment of British administration there, as quickly as possible".^[33] Inspired, Thatcher ordered the despatch of the Task Force for the South Atlantic.

After the war, the sale of HMS Invincible to Australia was cancelled, with Hermes offered instead (eventually being sold to India as INS Viraat in 1986), and the operational status of all three support carriers was maintained. The proposed cutback in the surface fleet was abandoned and replacements for many of the lost ships and helicopters plus more Sea Harriers were ordered.^[34] The amphibious assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid were not decommissioned until 2002 and 1999 respectively, being replaced by HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. The Royal Navy confirmed its commitment to a carrier force with the order of two Queen Elizabeth class carriers in 2007.

Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact

For the Soviet and Warsaw Pact militaries, the Falklands War forced a re-examination of their estimates of the quality of Western troops, and particularly how well all-volunteer forces compared with conscripted forces. The Soviets became aware that the British relied heavily on the quality and training of its personnel to compensate for the extreme logistical difficulties the campaign presented, and also noted that both sides were using many of the same western made weapons systems, their combat performance and effectiveness information collected during and after the war was analyzed by the Soviets to be used to create counter combat strategies to be adopted by their forces in an event of a then-possible war against NATO.

Weapon export controls

The Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM) failed to anticipate a conflict between Argentina and the UK when approving weapon exports to Argentina.

Allegations of nuclear deployment

It has been reported that two years after the war, Labour MPs demanded an inquiry^[35] into reports that a Resolution class submarine armed with the Polaris SLBMs had deployed to Ascension Island during the operation, ostensibly to prepare for a nuclear strike. The Ministry of Defence is reported to have denied the allegations, and Freedman's Official History does the same.^[36]

In 1982, British warships were routinely armed with the WE.177, a tactical nuclear weapon with a variable yield of either 10 kilotons or 0.5 kiloton, which was used as a Nuclear Depth Bomb in an antisubmarine role. The Official History describes the contorted logistical arrangements that led to the removal of the nuclear depth bombs from the frigates, following political alarm in Whitehall. Eventually at least some of the depth bombs were brought back to the UK by an RFA vessel. In December 2003, Argentine President Néstor Kirchner demanded an apology from the British government for the "regrettable and monstrous" act of arming warships engaged in the conflict with nuclear depth charges.^[37]

Intelligence analysis

MI6 activity

In his 2002 memoirs Sir John Nott, Britain's Secretary of State for Defence during the conflict, made following disclosure regarding the activities of the UK's Secret Intelligence Service (MI6):

I authorised our agents to pose as bona fide purchasers of equipment on the international market, ensuring that we outbid the Argentines, and other agents identified Exocet missiles in markets and rendered them inoperable.^[38]

Norwegian intelligence

According to a documentary by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK), during the war a Norwegian Intelligence Service facility situated at Fauske in the northern county of Nordland regularly intercepted Soviet satellite intelligence data, which was forwarded to the Northwood Headquarters. Said "a high-ranking British military source":

When the war broke out, we ourselves almost didn’t have any intelligence information from this area. It was here we got help from the Norwegians, who gave us a stream of information about the Argentine warships’ positions. The information came to us all the time and straight to our war headquarters at Northwood. The information was continuously updated and told us exactly where the Argentine ships were.^[39]

Soviet intervention

According to Russian journalist Sergei Brilev, whose claims were reported in The Times on 2 April 2010, Argentina may have received satellite imagery of British positions from the Soviet Union during the conflict.^[40][41]

Legal

In 2005, an Argentine film called "Blessed by Fire" exposed the mistreatment of Argentine conscripts during the war. That film "led directly to a criminal investigation" which resulted in the filing of formal charges of crimes against humanity against 70 Argentine military officers for the alleged abuse, torture and, in one case, murder of their own troops.^[42][43][44] However, the Comodoro Rivadavia Criminal Cassation Court ruled that tortures suffered by soldiers are not crimes against humanity [see instead War Crimes, a different legal category], thus the Argentine statute of limitations was applicable, and since that time limit had already been exceeded, the court therefore dismissed ["prescribed", in Argentine legal language] the case.^[45] On appeal to a higher court, the Comodoro Rivadavia Federal Chamber upheld the lower court's ruling.^[45]

Medical

Survival and recovery of wounded British soldiers

During the operations, several wounded British soldiers had to spend hours in the cold before receiving medical aid—yet no British soldier died who was evacuated to a medical aid station, a fact confirmed by Surgeon Commander Rick Jolly, the Medical Officer In Charge of the refrigeration plant at Ajax Bay (nicknamed "The Red and Green Life machine" by the medics). Many recovered better than medical opinion of the time considered possible; subsequent theories have postulated this may have been due to a combination of the extreme cold and the good standards of physical fitness amongst the wounded. Britain also had medical staff familiar with high velocity gunshot wounds, due to their experiences in the Northern Ireland conflict with the IRA.

Medical and psychological treatment of Falklands veterans

The British Ministry of Defence was accused several times of a systematic failure to prepare service personnel for the horrors of war and to provide adequate care for them afterwards.

There are allegations that the Ministry of Defence has tried to ignore the issue of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which left many sufferers emotionally scarred and unable to work, immersed in social dislocation, alcoholism, and depression. Veterans have suffered prolonged personality disorders, flashbacks, and anxiety sometimes reaching pathological levels.

It has been claimed that more veterans have committed suicide since the Falklands War ended than the number of servicemen killed in action.^[46] The South Atlantic Medal Association (SAMA82), which represents and helps Falklands veterans, believes that some 264 veterans had taken their own lives by 2002, a number exceeding the 255 who died in active service, although no estimate is available for the expected number of suicides that would have occurred anyway.

A comprehensive statistical study of the deaths of personnel deployed to the Falklands since the end of the conflict was published by Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) on Tuesday 14 May 2013.^[47] The study found that:

25,948				UK Armed Forces personnel served in the Falklands Campaign
237				personnel died during the campaign
1,335				Falklands veterans have died since 1982
95				of these deaths (veterans and in-service) were attributable to suicide and open verdict deaths

The statistics show that 7% of the deaths of Falklands veterans since the campaign were attributed to suicide, significantly less than the number of deaths during the campaign, and that, for Falklands veterans,

For deaths due to intentional self harm and events of undetermined intent (suicide and open verdict deaths) there was a 35% significant decreased risk of dying compared to the UK general population.

The trials of one British patient, Robert Lawrence, MC, were chronicled in a book co-authored by him entitled When The Fighting is Over which was later adapted into a television film. Lawrence was shot at close range by an FN rifle and lost a large percentage of brain matter, but recovered to a degree not thought possible.^[48] He remains partially paralysed in the left side of his body. After the war he became an outspoken critic of the British Army's treatment of Falklands veterans.

A similar situation afflicts the veterans on the Argentine side, many of whom have similarly suffered from psychiatric disorders, drug and alcohol abuse, and social turmoil.^[49] The current Argentine suicide toll is 454, according to an Argentine film about the suicide of a Falklands veteran.^[50]

References

1. Archived 31 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
2. Confirman el juzgamiento por torturas en Malvinas, (In Spanish), Clarín, Buenos Aires, 27 June 2009
3. ARGENTINA: Soldiers Report Torture, Murder - By Superiors - in Malvinas. By Marcela Valente. IPS
4. Centro de Ex Soldados Combatientes en Malvinas de Corrientes.
5. Lawrence Freedman: "The campaign itself, Operation Corporate, is now estimated to have cost about £1.5 billion. The cost of replacing lost equipment is put at £1,278 million. The largest single item in this figure is £641 million for four new Type 22 frigates... to replace Sir Galahad is put at £69 million, and new aircraft account for another £116 million." - Britain & the Falklands War, 1988
6. Clarke, H.D. Stewarr, M.C. Zuk, G. 1986. Politics, Economics and Party Popularity in Britain, 1979–83. Electoral Studies. 5(2): 123-141.
7. H. Norpoth, 'War and Government Popularity in Britain', paper given at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 1986.
8. Sanders,D. Ward, H. Marsh, D. 1987. Government Popularity and the Falklands War. British Journal of Political Science. 17(3): 281-313.
9. Bicheno, Hugh (2006). Razor's Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-0-297-84633-8.
10. Urban, Mark (1996), UK Eyes Alpha, London: Faber and Faber, p. 68, ISBN 978-0-571-17689-2
11. "UK 'regret' over Falklands dead". BBC News. 1 April 2007. Retrieved 23 April 2010.
12. "Thatcher rallying call to troops". BBC News. 13 June 2007. Retrieved 23 April 2010.
13. "Argentina vows Falklands return". BBC News. 14 June 2007. Retrieved 23 April 2010.
14. Sennes, Ricardo; Onuk, Janina; de Oliveira, Amacio Jorge. "The Brazilian foreign policy and the hemispheric security". Retrieved 22 May 2007.
15. "Caspar Weinberger who was the Defence Secretary at the time.... His staunch support later earned him a British Knighthood. He provided the United Kingdom with all the equipment she required during the war. Ranging from submarine detectors to the latest missiles. All this was done very discreetly."
16. K.J.Holsti, "The state, the war, and the state of war", University of Cambridge Press, ISBN 0-521-57790-X (pbk), first published 1996, page176:
17. David R. Mares, "Violent Peace", Columbia University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-231-11186-X, page 128
18. Simon Collier and William F. Sater, Cambridge University Press, A history of Chile, 1808–1994, page 364: "Argentina's defeat by Great Britain in the brief Falklands War (April–June 1982) - during which Chile gave discreet and totally unpublicised assistance to the British - dispelled the prospect of further military adventures from that quarter."
19. Mark Laudy, The Vatican Mediation of the Beagle Channel Dispute: Crisis Intervention and Forum Building, page 306: : "What ultimately changed that situation and facilitated the eventual settlement of the dispute was the Falkland Islands War and the subsequent return to democratic government in Buenos Aires."
20. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the visit of Pope John Paul II to Great Britain
21. Reuters, June 1982, Archbishop Says Pope's Visit To Argentina Is Nonpolitical
22. TONY BRENTON, BRITISH AMBASSADOR INTERVIEW TO GAZETA 14.06.2007 Archived 16 May 2008 at the Wayback Machine.
23. List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy
24. Keegan, Sir John, The Price of Admiralty: the Evolution of Naval Warfare Penguin (Non-Classics), 1990, ISBN 0-14-009650-7, pages 324–325
25. Hughes, Wayne P., "Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat" Naval Institute Press, 2000
26. Falklands victory 'a close run thing'
27. "Reagan Readied U.S. Warship for '82 Falklands War". News and Analysis, U.S. Naval Institute. 5 February 2013. Retrieved 18 December 2014.
28. (Jon Cooksey, 3 PARA MOUNT LONGDON, page 44)
29. Hastings and Jenkins: The Battle for the Falklands, chapter 1: "Forgotten Islands"
30. Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers
31. Hastings and Jenkins: The Battle for the Falklands, chapter 5: "Task Force": "In the previous decade, the very existence of the marines had come into question." and "both the assault ships Fearless and Intrepid were at that time threatened with sale to foreign powers"
32. Falklands 25 - Official Commemorative Publication, 2007, Newsdesk Communications LTD, ISBN 1-905435-44-4
33. Hill, Richard (May 2007). "Lewin, Terence Thornton, Baron Lewin (1920–1999)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/71891. Retrieved 3 October 2008. (subscription required (help)).
34. Preston, Antony (1982). "chapter 7: Conclusion". Sea Combat off the Falklands. London: Willow Books. ISBN 978-0-00-218046-7.
35. Margaret Thatcher Threatened to Use Nukes During Falkland Islands War News Max, 21 November 2005
36. Falklands: “The Sphinx and the curious case of the Iron Lady’s H-bomb” (memoirs of Mitterrand’s psychoanalyst), The Sunday Times, November 2005
37. Argentina demands UK nuke apology, CNN News, 7 December 2003
38. telegraph.co.uk How France helped us win Falklands war
39. http://www.nrk.no/programmer/tv/brennpunkt/1861285.html Article about the Fauske II station (in Norwegian)
40. Tony Halpin (2 April 2010). "Argentina had help from the Soviet Union during the Falkland's War". The Times. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
41. http://www.lanacion.com.ar/nota.asp?nota_id=1269664
42. BBC News. Accessed 25 November 2009
43. CNN. Accessed 25 November 2009
44. The Times. Accessed 25 November 2009
45. South Atlantic News Agency MercoPress. Accessed 19 May 2012
46. Falklands Veterans suicide toll BBC News. Retrieved 12 January 2007.
47. A study of deaths among UK Armed Forces personnel deployed to the 1982 Falklands Campaign: 1982 to 2012 published: 14 May 2013
48. Lawrence, Robert and John Lawrence, When the Fighting Is Over: A Personal Story of the Battle for Tumbledown Mountain and Its Aftermath.
49. Argentina's veterans die of shame
50. Iluminados por el fuego by Tristán Bauer, 2006