text: have not yet made it possible to put an end to the crisis or even to prevent an intensification of the con- flict, because today the Falklands/Malvinas war seems to have entered a new and critical phase whose con- sequences no one can yet determine; sorrow because history has often demonstrated that it is a series of little incidents that causes major catastrophes and sorrolw because in this Falklands/Malvinas affair it is hard for us not to remember the past, since we have a vivid impression that we have seen this all before and the certainty of a repetition of history, as has been said in another debate, . 27. We took note with satisfaction and, indeed, with some relief of the assurances given, the day before yesterday, by my friend and colleague Sir Anthony Parsons when he said: “it is absolutely inconceivable that Britain would use nuclear weapons in the dispute with .Argentina over the Falklands” [2362nd meeting, pL~fX. 3731. We would expect no less from the United Kingdom. 3 28. But in this fight-1 do not know if it is a case of David and Goliath-everyone should pay due atten- tion to the fact that one party is living completely in the age of nuclear war, while the other is still trying to acquire and master the means to live fully in the age of conventional war, and this in a nuclear era. 29. All this makes us think of a giant whose huge hand cannot get through the hole in a thick wall to seize from the hands of an adversary cowering behind the wall what he believes is his without destroying the wall itself. First, he attempts to slip his finger through the hole, hoping to grab his adversary and recover what belongs to him. If, however, frustrated by the ineffec- 
analysis: The text appears to be a diplomatic speech or statement, likely from a high-ranking official or leader, addressing the ongoing conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. The speech touches on the potential consequences of the conflict, including the use of nuclear weapons, and highlights the asymmetry in the parties' military capabilities. The language used is formal and diplomatic, indicating a focus on international relations and conflict resolution.