The (American) Falkland Islands War of 1982

Under Reagan, we would be sad that we couldnt invade Iran. I think a full ground invasion of Argentina would not be out of the question. We would see a much more impoverished Argentina after said invasion, such as Iraq in 2004 and Libya after Gadaffi

Only if the TL where the US gets Argentina also has Argentina as a communist country.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if the Falkland Islands were an American possession, and not British? Would Argentina dare challenge the U.S. for possession of the islands in 1982? Would there have been U.S. Marines and not Royal Marines charging ashore at Cape Pembroke? Who has any ideas?
Not just no, but HELL NO.

The Junta decided to have a go at the Falklands because the perception was the UK wouldn't deploy anything more than harsh language. It is safe to say that no one on Earth ever believed that President Reagan was a shrinking violet, and even more safe to say that no one since 1945 has ever thought the U.S. lacked the capacity to move forces anywhere and in whatever strength was required.
 

Nick P

Donor
In a world where the Confederate States of America survives to the current day in a long stand-off against the USA, would either of those nations go to war to keep the Falkland Islands?
Would they have expeditionary forces, Marines and the like, in such strength to fight in the South Atlantic?
 

Iron Sun

Banned
In a world where the Confederate States of America survives to the current day in a long stand-off against the USA, would either of those nations go to war to keep the Falkland Islands?
Would they have expeditionary forces, Marines and the like, in such strength to fight in the South Atlantic?
Why would the CSA be interested in a bunch of rocks in the South Atlantic?
 
The Junta decided to have a go at the Falklands because the perception was the UK wouldn't deploy anything more than harsh language. It is safe to say that no one on Earth ever believed that President Reagan was a shrinking violet, and even more safe to say that no one since 1945 has ever thought the U.S. lacked the capacity to move forces anywhere and in whatever strength was required.
To be fair, very few people believed that Maggie was a shrinking violet either, but because she was a woman the Junta believed she'd never go to war. So maybe a female Ronald Reagan in this world where there was an American Falkland Islands would work? They were certainly pretty divorced from reality...
 
To be fair, very few people believed that Maggie was a shrinking violet either, but because she was a woman the Junta believed she'd never go to war. So maybe a female Ronald Reagan in this world where there was an American Falkland Islands would work? They were certainly pretty divorced from reality...

Well, to be fair to the Argentine Administration, Nicholas Ridley had been pushing, with the support of the FCO, for a lease-back solution to the Falklands, similar to that in Hong Kong. This was moving slowly, but it seemed fairly clear that the FCO was working towards getting rid of the Islands. Add into that the Defence Review, the withdrawal of HMS Endurance, the Nationality Act (which affected the status of the Islanders), and it's not surprising that the assumption was made that Britain wouldn't fight to retain the Islands.
 
Well, to be fair to the Argentine Administration, Nicholas Ridley had been pushing, with the support of the FCO, for a lease-back solution to the Falklands, similar to that in Hong Kong. This was moving slowly, but it seemed fairly clear that the FCO was working towards getting rid of the Islands. Add into that the Defence Review, the withdrawal of HMS Endurance, the Nationality Act (which affected the status of the Islanders), and it's not surprising that the assumption was made that Britain wouldn't fight to retain the Islands.

Also there was a perception (that they actually repeated to the incrudilous Americans who were attempting to secure a peace deal) that the British won't fight as they had no recent experiance of war having not fought any battles since 1945 - unlike the Argentine Military which had gained stacks of combat experiance as they had been recently fighting shotgun armed native american farmers....and students....and Nuns.

Also what probably did not help was the near weekly tabloid headline of some minister or another found on some common or heath 'hip deep' in a rent boy - giving the impression certainly to the Junta that the British government was a bunch of 'weak minded homosexual men' (no insult implied).

Now we here in this island were somewhat bored with the weekly news of such goings on in 1982, what went on in and around Whitehall 'stayed' in and around Whitehall, but to the Argentine Male of the Junta leadership Stock such things were not done by real leaders (again Im being somewhat generalist here) - and lastly - they told the US Peace envoy that Britain was led by a 'weak woman'.

At the last comment the Peace Envoys pretty much threw in the towel as they were unable and unwilling to follow the Junta leadership down the rabbit hole.

Its odd that had they simply waited then the Islands would have become Argentinian after a 100 years or so following some sort of leaseback deal with increasing ties to the mainland.

Now after so much blood and treasure (and dodgy football results) such a thing cannot now happen.

Certainly not within our life time.
 
About the only way I could seriously see the Argies trying would be in some sort of "Brink of WW3" style crisis or worse, under the assumption that the US will shortly be engaged in a contest to the death with the USSR anyways, so they won't have time to respond before the nukes are flying... and then a last minute diplomatic deal happens the day after. Whoops.

Or I suppose instead, having a significantly crazier, divorced from reality dictator taking power.
 
I don't want to stoke the fires of the 'why' debate because despite my interest in the military balance and mechanics of such a war I struggle to imagine a viable scenario.

However I believe thise having the 'why' argument aren't giving enough attention to the non rational factors or the strong domestic pressures that drove the invasion. Initation of wars by weaker powers is by no means uncommon, and even losing such wars can provide benefits to those who provoke them.

I think the Junta wasn't counting ships and planes when they decided to invade, they added up the signals they wanted to see and compared that to domesyic dangers and made the decision. I believe Galtieri said that Thatcher 'would ' do nothing rather than 'could' do nothing, so he was relying on non rational factors in his reasoning.

I also recall that Haig during his shuttle diplomacy was first impressed and then alarmed by the amount of whisky Galtieri drank. He would get half tanked and then go out onto the balcony of Casa Rosada where the people in the square would cheer. He would then get a metaphorical hard-on and come back into the room full of piss and vinegar and start talking tough. In that scenario I doubt even CVA01 would have deterred him.
 
I don't want to stoke the fires of the 'why' debate because despite my interest in the military balance and mechanics of such a war I struggle to imagine a viable scenario.

However I believe thise having the 'why' argument aren't giving enough attention to the non rational factors or the strong domestic pressures that drove the invasion. Initation of wars by weaker powers is by no means uncommon, and even losing such wars can provide benefits to those who provoke them.

I think the Junta wasn't counting ships and planes when they decided to invade, they added up the signals they wanted to see and compared that to domesyic dangers and made the decision. I believe Galtieri said that Thatcher 'would ' do nothing rather than 'could' do nothing, so he was relying on non rational factors in his reasoning.

I also recall that Haig during his shuttle diplomacy was first impressed and then alarmed by the amount of whisky Galtieri drank. He would get half tanked and then go out onto the balcony of Casa Rosada where the people in the square would cheer. He would then get a metaphorical hard-on and come back into the room full of piss and vinegar and start talking tough. In that scenario I doubt even CVA01 would have deterred him.
The real promoter of the was Admiral Anaya, who supported Galtieri's palace coup against the former dictator (Viola) in exchange of the invasion of the Falkland Islands (and once the missiles started flying, promptly ordered the Argentine surface fleet to go back to port). They were making an irrational decision, but Galtieri's alcoholic tendencies weren't a factor in deciding to invade.

But since we are at emotional decisions, keep in mind that, barring significant (and unlikely) butterflies, the members of the Argentine Junta were trained by American officers. Those kind of international training agreements tend to create bonds between the involved countries (at least in so far as trainees admiring their trainers).

In other words, an Argentine attack on the USA in a similar to OTL 1982 simply wouldn't happen. Worse come the worse, they'd attack Chile if they are looking for a foreign war to rally the population.
 
Well, to be fair to the Argentine Administration, Nicholas Ridley had been pushing, with the support of the FCO, for a lease-back solution to the Falklands, similar to that in Hong Kong. This was moving slowly, but it seemed fairly clear that the FCO was working towards getting rid of the Islands. Add into that the Defence Review, the withdrawal of HMS Endurance, the Nationality Act (which affected the status of the Islanders), and it's not surprising that the assumption was made that Britain wouldn't fight to retain the Islands.
Who would be the American Nicholas Ridley in this timeline? Jimmy Carter? George McGovern? What house of Congress would he serve?

BTW:

Is statehood possible for the Falklands if they are American?
 
A fleet of ships going around the Horn could do it many hundred miles south out of range from the nearest Argentine Airbase and likely avoid detection and remain out of range of a likely air strike.

The CBGs would likely come from the Med and probably Atlantic fleet asset's (with other units scrambling to cover there former jobs).

I expect that they would be stood up as 4th Fleet (deactivated in 1950) which had been responsible for the South Atlantic

Are the CVH and Amphibs of the Marines Panamax vessels? In which case I expect any Pacific assets capable of doing so to sortie via the Canal.


What about the draft? Would it be reinstated?
 
What about the draft? Would it be reinstated?

The American Draft? No way in hell, unless an ASB has replaced Argentina with the USSR and then wiped out both sides nuclear arsenals. First off, there's no way that more then a division or two can operate on the Falklands at the same time, and second, there's no need, unless you think a sheep protection regiment is a vital military need.
 
What about the draft? Would it be reinstated?

Nah - 2 MABs and a couple of smaller units and additional support ships to round them out should suffice - thats about twice what the UK sent in terms of ground troops - 2 CBGs is about 10 times what the UK Sent in terms of sea and air power LOL

The whole thing would be done and dusted easily inside of 6 months using established forces well before the first draft could be organised and picked - let alone trained.

Regarding your question about statehood - I imagine that they would be treated like Porto Rico an unincorporated territory of the United States
 
All good points.

Conceivably the U.S. could also stage a certain amount of tanker support out of the continental U.S. ? But yes I expect that there would be a preference to at least stage tankers out of closer locations ?

I seem to recall some disussion in the early 1980's of B52's potentially employing PGM's so perhaps a few targeted strikes on point targets could be carried out vs carpet bombing with MK82's and M117's ?
there was a squadron, at some point in the 80s(don't remember when) trained/equipped for anti ship work; based in maine.
Who would be the American Nicholas Ridley in this timeline? Jimmy Carter? George McGovern? What house of Congress would he serve?

BTW:

Is statehood possible for the Falklands if they are American?
Who would be the American Nicholas Ridley in this timeline? Jimmy Carter? George McGovern? What house of Congress would he serve?

BTW:

Is statehood possible for the Falklands if they are American?
no, not enough people.
 
Top