B6, key topic 4 - Conventional and ‘new’ wars, 1976–2000

Conventional War Continues

Conventional warfare means fighting mainly with non-nuclear armed forces: infantry, tanks, artillery, aircraft, ships, missiles, logistics and command systems. It usually involves organised armed forces of states, recognisable military objectives, and attempts to control territory, sea routes or airspace.

After 1945, nuclear weapons made a direct superpower war extremely dangerous. However, they did not make conventional war obsolete. Britain and Argentina fought a conventional war over the Falkland Islands in 1982. Iraq and a U.S.-led coalition fought a conventional war over Kuwait in 1990-91. These wars were limited compared with a world war, but they still depended on the old essentials of warfare: movement, firepower, supply, leadership, morale and control of land, sea and air.

At the same time, warfare was changing. The word "new" in this key topic does not mean that every tactic was totally new. Guerrilla warfare had existed for centuries. What changed was the scale and context. Superpowers became involved in conflicts where they could not simply win by having more tanks or aircraft. Smaller forces could use terrain, portable weapons, propaganda, outside funding and local support to make a stronger enemy's occupation costly.

So the core pattern is:

A common mistake is to say "guerrilla war replaced conventional war." A stronger answer says that both existed together. The late twentieth century was not a clean switch from one type of war to another. It was a period of overlap.

Model mini-paragraph:

Conventional warfare remained important after 1976 because states still used organised armed forces to win territorial and strategic objectives. This can be seen in the Falklands War, where Britain sent a naval task force to retake the islands, and in the first Gulf War, where a coalition used air, sea and land forces to drive Iraq out of Kuwait. However, these wars also showed change because conventional forces increasingly relied on advanced aircraft, missiles, communications and naval technology.

Falklands Carrier Warfare

The Falklands War began on 2 April 1982 when Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory in the South Atlantic. Britain responded by sending a task force thousands of miles from home. The war ended with Argentine surrender in the Falklands on 14 June 1982.

This was a conventional war because it involved state armed forces fighting over territory. It included naval movement across the Atlantic, air combat, amphibious landings and ground fighting around Port Stanley. Yet it also showed how conventional war was changing. Britain could not rely on nearby air bases. Its air power had to come mainly from aircraft carriers.

The key British carriers were HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible. They carried Sea Harriers, aircraft able to operate from smaller carrier decks. This mattered because Britain no longer had large fleet carriers of the kind used in the Second World War. The Falklands therefore tested whether smaller carriers and vertical/short take-off aircraft could provide enough air defence for a distant naval task force.

The Sea Harrier's performance was significant, but it should not be exaggerated into a simple story of one wonder weapon. British success depended on a whole system: carriers, pilots, radar, escorts, anti-aircraft missiles, intelligence, training and the ability to land ground forces. Argentine pilots also caused serious British losses, which showed that ships operating near hostile aircraft remained vulnerable.

The Falklands War therefore showed both continuity and change. The continuity was that sea power and control of territory still mattered. The change was that aircraft carriers had to operate as part of a high-risk defensive network against fast jets and missiles.

Model mini-paragraph:

The Falklands War showed the continuing importance of aircraft carriers because Britain needed HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible to provide air cover so far from home. Sea Harriers helped defend the task force and made a British amphibious campaign possible. However, Argentine air attacks and missile threats showed that carrier warfare had become more dangerous, because even powerful naval forces were vulnerable without strong air defence.

Submarines And Sea Control

Nuclear submarines are not the same as nuclear weapons. A nuclear-powered submarine uses a nuclear reactor for propulsion. This gives it long endurance underwater, allowing prolonged submerged patrols; stealth also depends on the submarine’s design and operation. It may carry conventional weapons, nuclear weapons, or both depending on its type and role.

In the Falklands War, HMS Conqueror showed the importance of nuclear-powered attack submarines. Conqueror was able to reach the South Atlantic quickly and patrol for Argentine ships. On 2 May 1982, it sank the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano with conventional torpedoes. The sinking was controversial, but militarily it had a major effect: it demonstrated that British submarines could threaten Argentine surface ships.

The effect of a submarine is not only the damage it does. It also changes enemy behaviour. If a navy fears unseen submarines, it may keep ships in port or operate more cautiously. That is sea control by threat as much as by battle.

The first Gulf War showed another development. U.S. Navy ships and submarines used Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles during Operation Desert Storm. Fast attack submarines USS Louisville and USS Pittsburgh fired the first submarine-launched Tomahawks in combat history while submerged. This was important because submarines were no longer only hunters of ships and submarines. They could also strike land targets from the sea with conventional precision weapons.

This connects the Falklands and the Gulf War. In both cases, submarines mattered because they extended sea power. In the Falklands, HMS Conqueror helped control the sea by threatening enemy ships. In the Gulf War, submarines helped project power onto land through long-range cruise missiles.

Misconception check: do not write "nuclear submarines made the wars nuclear." The weapons used in these examples were conventional. The change was that nuclear propulsion supported longer submerged patrols and greater endurance, making submarines useful in conventional war without requiring nuclear weapons.