Falklands: Argentina mauls the UK task force...

[Thundertaker]

Apparently, the loss of any one of the British carriers would have forced the British into a humilating retreat from re-taking the Falklands by force. What would have happened then? According to recently released audio tapes, Ronald Reagan feared that the British would nuke Buenos Aires if they lost. Would this have been a feasible response to the loss of the task force, and if not, what would the alternative have been?

[NapoleonXIV]

Reagan jawbones both sides into a compromise peace. The British keep the islands but the Argentines share fishing and mineral rights to the waters.

[stodge]

Had the Invincible gone down, or been badly damaged, the Task Force would probably have withdrawn out of Argentine aircraft range.

There was, I believe, a plan to attack Cordoba with a Polaris missile but I suspect such a plan would have horrified Washington. A British military reverse in the Falklands would have politically damaged both Reagan and Thatcher, the latter irreparably.

As for Reagan, with the military option eclipsed, it would have been left to Haig and other diplomats to resurrect the Bolivian or Peruvian peace plans. The influence of Reagan in foreign policy would have been eclipsed until after his re-election with Haig much more important.

As for Britain, a military defeat in the South Atlantic would have finished Thatcher politically. Her successor, William Whitelaw, a man in declining health, would have had to make the best of a bad job.

In the October 1982 election, the Conservatives are trounced by the Alliance of Social Democrats and Liberals with Roy Jenkins becoming Prime Minister.

[Thande]

The howwor! The howwor!

[Thundertaker]

I think Australia, Canada and the US all offered to lend Britain ships to replace those lost to the Argentinians, the latter a fully-fledged aircraft carrier. Would they have taken up the offer and tried again? Would the defeat of a democratic country that had had it's territory seized aggressively have been accepted?

[Thande]

Well, it happened in 1938...

If the Australians or Canadians had offered and the British had then gone on to eventually win, this might have the side effect of consolidating future Commonwealth cooperation.

[Matt]

Didn't the US offer the use of a Nimitiz class carrier to GB?

[Thande]

NIMITZ CLASS? If so I've never heard of it. The US seemed fastidiously neutral, trying to stop two of its allies falling out. If we'd had one of those babies we could have blown Buenos Aires all the way to South Georgia, and see how they like it! (Only joking)

BTW my uncle was in the Falklands War, an engineer on the hospital ship (can't remember the name)...said he got fed up of diving into the South Atlantic every time an Exocet came their way...

[zoomar]

Actually, it is my recollection that the US did provide lots of intelligence to the UK - and I believe that had the worst case happened (which given how previous governments had gutted the capability of the RN was probably more likely than we might imagine) the Reagan administration would have offered Thatcher as much military help as necessary to reclaim the Falklands and put Argentina back in its place. Either way it would have been disastrous for the British. I don't know which would be more embarrasing, losing a war with Argentina or winning one only because the US bailed them out.

[Thundertaker]

I think Australia offered to lend some destroyers when the Sheffield was sunk as well......

[JLCook]

The only possibility would be to SELL an almost ready to be retired conventional carrier, say a FORESTALL class at very favorable terms, airwing included! That would establish a "Principle" that the USN would be willing to sell it's older Aircraft carriers under the "right" circumstances!

Those circumstances, today, might well have included selling one to the UK today, had there been a greater falling out with EUrope (France in particular) over Iraq!

Another possibility: If China were to attack Taiwan, while at the same time North Korea attacked the SOuth, and also Japan, it might suddenly become necessary for the JSDF to acquire a real battleforce in order to properly defend themselves. Something on the order of the KITTYHAWK or the KENNEDY I would think would be very attractive for them! Both of those ships are intended for retirement, so sale of either might be practical under some circumstances!

[Thande]

It would be ironic, given that Britain was ready to sell its own aircraft carriers (and, if Argentina had waited a bit longer, we would have - and we'd have no chance in hell of getting the Falklands back).

[DMA]

For Argentina to have victory in the Falklands War, they would need to get Port Stanley airport, well the tarmac actually, to operate Skyhawk, Mirage, & Entendard aircraft. They also need more Exocett missiles. Achieving this would give the Argentines an unsinkable aircraft carrier & put the RN at a complete disadvantage.

Now if Britain was defeated, & it's a big if, the USA would have stepped in on the UK's side. Argentina's armed forces would have lasted about a day at best. Britain gets the Falklands back & Argentina still goes through a "revolution" where the military junta is kicked out etc. So, in the short term, little overall changes.

The mid to long term affects are very different.

Internationally, the UK's reputation would hit rock bottom. Obviously Maggie would be booted out of office, but that would be nothing compared to the depression that the UK would find itself in. The UK may even find itself to be the basket case of Europe. And, in relation to the EU, Britain would be considered a junior partner. France & Germany would both surpass the UK as a power - especially an economic one.

[Brilliantlight]

Originally Posted by DMA

For Argentina to have victory in the Falklands War, they would need to get Port Stanley airport, well the tarmac actually, to operate Skyhawk, Mirage, & Entendard aircraft. They also need more Exocett missiles. Achieving this would give the Argentines an unsinkable aircraft carrier & put the RN at a complete disadvantage.

Now if Britain was defeated, & it's a big if, the USA would have stepped in on the UK's side. Argentina's armed forces would have lasted about a day at best. Britain gets the Falklands back & Argentina still goes through a "revolution" where the military junta is kicked out etc. So, in the short term, little overall changes.

The mid to long term affects are very different.

Internationally, the UK's reputation would hit rock bottom. Obviously Maggie would be booted out of office, but that would be nothing compared to the depression that the UK would find itself in.

Why in God's name would the UK suddenly find itself in a depression? The loss of the Argintine war (Whether the US bails them out in the end or not) will have very little effect on the British economy. Its major effect would be on British prestige.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

Why in God's name would the UK suddenly find itself in a depression? The loss of the Argintine war (Whether the US bails them out in the end or not) will have very little effect on the British economy. Its major effect would be on British prestige.

Britain, in 1982, is already suffering economic problems. Add in a Falklands War defeat, which will take out Maggie, in the middle of her economic "rebuilding programs" etc, & you can bet your last pound, euro, dollar, whatever, that Britain's economy will go down the drain real fast.

[Brilliantlight]

Originally Posted by DMA

Britain, in 1982, is already suffering economic problems. Add in a Falklands War defeat, which will take out Maggie, in the middle of her economic "rebuilding programs" etc, & you can bet your last pound, euro, dollar, whatever, that Britain's economy will go down the drain real fast.

Not enough. A further decline I can see but not an out and out depression.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

Not enough. A further decline I can see but not an out and out depression.

Well Labour certainly had no economic recovery policies at that time, & it could be successfully argued that Labour's policies in the 1960s-70s, contributed to the economic recession in the late 1970s-80s. Furthermore, Maggie's polices did nothing to help those out of work & others suffering from economic problems. So in 1982, Britain is really in economy trouble.

Now add in a bad defeat, which would have cost the UK a fortune it couldn't afford (in fact it could hardly pay for the OTL victory), a change in PM to some Tory no-hoper, plus a change in government as well a few months after the war with a Labour victory... And, oh yeah, it's more than enough for Britain to suffer even harsher economic conditions throughout the rest of the 1980s & well into the 1990s.

Now sure, the UK would eventually recover, but I'd think you'd find that there would be no more Pound, instead the UK would use the Euro, plus Britain would be more intergrated into Europe than is currently the case.

[Brilliantlight]

Originally Posted by DMA

Well Labour certainly had no economic recovery policies at that time, & it could be successfully argued that Labour's policies in the 1960s-70s, contributed to the economic recession in the late 1970s-80s. Furthermore, Maggie's polices did nothing to help those out of work & others suffering from economic problems. So in 1982, Britain is really in economy trouble.

Now add in a bad defeat, which would have cost the UK a fortune it couldn't afford (in fact it could hardly pay for the OTL victory), a change in PM to some Tory no-hoper, plus a change in government as well a few months after the war with a Labour victory... And, oh yeah, it's more than enough for Britain to suffer even harsher economic conditions throughout the rest of the 1980s & well into the 1990s.

Now sure, the UK would eventually recover, but I'd think you'd find that there would be no more Pound, instead the UK would use the Euro, plus Britain would be more intergrated into Europe than is currently the case.

Unless the US government decides it is in its interest to boost the British economy by shoring up the pound by buying them to boost its reserves.

[DMA]

Originally Posted by Brilliantlight

Unless the US government decides it is in its interest to boost the British economy by shoring up the pound by buying them to boost its reserves.

It'll need more than that from the US. Besides, we're talking 1982 here. Currency speculation wasn't nearly as big as it is now or, for that matter, 1989...

[ericams2786]

Originally Posted by Thundertaker

Apparently, the loss of any one of the British carriers would have forced the British into a humilating retreat from re-taking the Falklands by force. What would have happened then? According to recently released audio tapes, Ronald Reagan feared that the British would nuke Buenos Aires if they lost. Would this have been a feasible response to the loss of the task force, and if not, what would the alternative have been?

I don't think the British would be dumb enough to nuke Argentina, I mean is a small group of pretty much useless islands really worth killing hundreds of thousands of people over?