Much more serious Falklands/ Malvianas event

WI The Argentine military had planned properly for the invasion on the assumption that Britain would fight.

They provided the right logistical and anti aircraft support for the occupation force.

They had bombs with the right kind of fuse

and they had purchased more exocet missiles.

Suppose Thatcher goes crazy, and threatens use of nuclear weapons?

I don't think the rest of NATO would be happy about the UK breaking the nuclear taboo about that. Also, Thatcher had another option: chemical weapons. Unless the POD includes preparing the Argentine armed forces for chemical warfare, the British can contact the local population over short wave radio, tell them to leave areas near Argentine garrison, gas the Argentine soldiers and take the islands unopposed.

Thatcher threatening to nuke over the Falklands or using any bio or chemical weapons sounds likely to erode the support Britain had. Which from the U.S was already pretty lackluster from what I've heard. I recall reading somewhere, can't remember where, sorry, that Haig wanted to side with or at least favor the Argentinians. I don't know know how likely that was to happen though, if what I said was even accurate.

Alternatively, the British could began an air war against facilities on Argentina and the occupied Falklands using Royal Navy missiles and Royal Air Force V-bombers operating from South Atlantic air bases.

araraya said:

Thatcher threatening to nuke over the Falklands or using any bio or chemical weapons sounds likely to erode the support Britain had. Which from the U.S was already pretty lackluster from what I've heard. I recall reading somewhere, can't remember where, sorry, that Haig wanted to side with or at least favor the Argentinians. I don't know know how likely that was to happen though, if what I said was even accurate.

Click to expand...

The US supplied Jet fuel, weapons and from memory had put some effort into providing a Amphib in case one of the carriers were lost.

araraya said:

Thatcher threatening to nuke over the Falklands or using any bio or chemical weapons sounds likely to erode the support Britain had. Which from the U.S was already pretty lackluster from what I've heard. I recall reading somewhere, can't remember where, sorry, that Haig wanted to side with or at least favor the Argentinians. I don't know know how likely that was to happen though, if what I said was even accurate.

Click to expand...

The same "I am in charge here" psycho A Haig? The general public opinion was pro British anti Argentinian.

sparky42 said:

The US supplied Jet fuel, weapons and from memory had put some effort into providing a Amphib in case one of the carriers were lost.

Click to expand...

If I remember the French held up delivering more Exocet missiles and gave some technical support on how to defeat them to GB.

araraya said:

Thatcher threatening to nuke over the Falklands or using any bio or chemical weapons sounds likely to erode the support Britain had. Which from the U.S was already pretty lackluster from what I've heard. I recall reading somewhere, can't remember where, sorry, that Haig wanted to side with or at least favor the Argentinians. I don't know know how likely that was to happen though, if what I said was even accurate.

Click to expand...

Haig was a true neutral, who wanted to prevent bloodshed. It was Jean Kirkpatrick who backed the illegal occupation of British territory by a dictatorship.

Derek Jackson said:

WI The Argentine military had planned properly for the invasion on the assumption that Britain would fight.

They provided the right logistical and anti aircraft support for the occupation force.

They had bombs with the right kind of fuse

and they had purchased more exocet missiles.

Suppose Thatcher goes crazy, and threatens use of nuclear weapons?

Click to expand...

If the junta does all those things, then they will not achieve the surprise of OTL.

Reagan will quietly ask Galtieri to not be so moronically stupid* as to clash with Britain.

Thatcher will park a couple of SSNs off the Falklands to stop any invasion force.

Galtieri and Anaya will probably call off the invasion (Anaya was realistic about Argentine ASW).

It will be one of those events when in years to come, everybody involved will look away, embarrassed, and change the subject.

*That's from the US' standpoint, where there are important things like toppling Communism to be getting on with.

IIRC, it came out a few years ago that some of the Royal Navy actually were carrying nuclear weapons when they sailed for the Falklands. I'm not sure if I'm remembering correctly, but I think that they were nuclear depth charges and that there simply hadn't been time to take them off before they departed.

If the Junta though Britain would fight they wouldn't have attacked. They were looking for a cheap political gesture to distract people from a collapsing economy not a drawn out battle.

Garrison said:

If the Junta though Britain would fight they wouldn't have attacked. They were looking for a cheap political gesture to distract people from a collapsing economy not a drawn out battle.

Click to expand...

Some people on other threads regarding a stronger Royal Navy have voiced the opinion that the junta might take its chance even against a United Kingdom with several fleet aircraft carriers. Logistics win wars, and the British would still be operating from a long logistics chain fighting in the Falklands, while Argentina would still have the advantage of fighting closer to home.

Delta Force said:

Some people on other threads regarding a stronger Royal Navy have voiced the opinion that the junta might take its chance even against a United Kingdom with several fleet aircraft carriers. Logistics win wars, and the British would still be operating from a long logistics chain fighting in the Falklands, while Argentina would still have the advantage of fighting closer to home.

Click to expand...

But the problem is the economic and political situation in Argentina. The Argentine economy was in bad enough shape without the Junta trying to build up arms for a serious conflict and any kind of drawn out war with the British would have undermined the Junta. They only moved because they had convinced themselves(with considerable help from the Thatcher government) that the British were prepared to abandon the Falklands.

Delta Force said:

Alternatively, the British could began an air war against facilities on Argentina and the occupied Falklands using Royal Navy missiles and Royal Air Force V-bombers operating from South Atlantic air bases.

Click to expand...

Did the RN had conventional ground attack missiles? As for V-bombers, the Black Buck missions were complicated as they were - adding hundreds more of miles to target (and likely fail to destroy) areas were fighters are likely to scramble to intercept isn't likely to shield results.

GarethC said:

If the junta does all those things, then they will not achieve the surprise of OTL.

Click to expand...

It depends exactly on what they do, specially since they can justify everything with the threat of a war with Chile (a war which Pinochet wouldn't start, but let's forget about that for a moment). Say, as in OTL, Argentina buys two Type 42 destroyers. There is nothing odd about the Argentine Navy and Air Force making exercises trying to find out how to sink them without using missiles and prepare bomb fuses accordingly in the aftermath. Adding a few more tankers to the Air Force isn't something that would raise eyebrows (trying to add aerial refueling capability to the Mirages might be, though). Army units getting proper winter gear and training is also perfectly understandable. Working out the issues with the newly bought submarines' torpedoes is also standard order of business. The original order for exocet missiles were 35, but the Junta attacked when only the first five of them had been delivered. But we move to the next point:

Garrison said:

If the Junta though Britain would fight they wouldn't have attacked. They were looking for a cheap political gesture to distract people from a collapsing economy not a drawn out battle.

Click to expand...

Indeed. A different leadership is required. Of course, that might be implied in the POD

Garrison said:

But the problem is the economic and political situation in Argentina. The Argentine economy was in bad enough shape without the Junta trying to build up arms for a serious conflict and any kind of drawn out war with the British would have undermined the Junta. They only moved because they had convinced themselves(with considerable help from the Thatcher government) that the British were prepared to abandon the Falklands.

Click to expand...

The treasonous activities of the Whitehall Mandarin's and their decades long crusade to be rid of the Falklands inspite of any public opinion or Government policy to contrary beggars belief.

Other than Thatchers governments efforts in reducing public spending resulting in the navy being slimmed down (including the decommissioning of HMS Endurance) - they had very little to do with the Junta's decision making process - or certainly no more than previous governments who had repeatedly failed to make a decision on replacing the Eagle and Ark Royal (unless you consider no decision as a decision?)

In response to the OP - unless the Junta can hide its efforts (unlikely) then HMG is going to build up a garrison as fast as they can and send approximately 'Some' Hunter Killer Nuclear subs to the area, strongly worded letter to the times and pressure from the various 'friends' of Britain etc

On the subject of Nuclear weapons - it takes more than the prime minister waking up crazy one morning to order the release of Nuclear weapons! Its not going to happen.

Some one suggested that Nuclear Depth charges were on board some of the ships that started out from Gibraltar. This is true but they were handed over mid journey to an RFA ship which returned them to the UK.

They never entered the war zone as far as I know.

Basically eve if they do provide the island with more troops etc so long as 3rd Commando brigade gets ashore with enough supplies - then the Argies lose.

Garrison said:

If the Junta though Britain would fight they wouldn't have attacked. They were looking for a cheap political gesture to distract people from a collapsing economy not a drawn out battle.

Click to expand...

They were thinking along these lines:

"What this country needs is a short, victorious war to stem the tide of revolution." - V.K. Plehve, Russian Minister of the Interior to General A.N. Kuropatkin, Minister of War circa. 1903.

Cryhavoc101 said:

In response to the OP - unless the Junta can hide its efforts (unlikely) then HMG is going to build up a garrison as fast as they can and send approximately 'Some' Hunter Killer Nuclear subs to the area, strongly worded letter to the times and pressure from the various 'friends' of Britain etc

Click to expand...

I don't know. What did they do when Argentina added KC-130 tankers to the Air Force, or when air launched exocets begun to be delivered?
They've bid to sell more weapons to Argentina! There were even talks of selling Vulcans to Argentina, besides the existing sale of Blowpipe Manpads, two state of the art (for the period) warships, Canberra bombers and I don't remember what else.

juanml82 said:

I don't think the rest of NATO would be happy about the UK breaking the nuclear taboo about that. Also, Thatcher had another option: chemical weapons. Unless the POD includes preparing the Argentine armed forces for chemical warfare, the British can contact the local population over short wave radio, tell them to leave areas near Argentine garrison, gas the Argentine soldiers and take the islands unopposed.

Click to expand...

Nope, Britain had scrapped its chemical weapons several years earlier.

There are claims that Thatcher told Mitterand that if he didn't provide the UK with codes to disable the Exocet guidance systems then she'd nuke Buenos Aries.

The Falklands war was never winnable for the Argentines because they had little support, and more importantly they didn't have the technology that Britain had. The British ships had guns that fired x miles, and the Argentinian guns fired half that, and couldn't move as fast. So the Brits basically trolled the fuck out of them by maintaining a safe distance whilst bombarding the Argentines with a barrage of gunfire. It was the international equivalent of holding a small child at arms length so they can't punch or kick you.

You could escalate the fuck out of the situation though, Britain is on good terms with Chile, who have several border disputes and past grievances with Argentina. This could be an excuse to take those regions on the behalf of Chile, and to basically take revenge on Argentina and dissuade them from any further attempts at annexation at the risk of losing more territory.