See title. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to plausibly, with a POD no earlier than 1970. It doesn't matter who wins the war. Just make it make sense, and be detailed.
Good luck!
Good luck!
AHC: Turn the Falklands War into a World War
- Thread starter DirtyCommie
- Start date
It can't make sense, but let's try.
Apparently, the USSR had offered the Argentinean junta to sink British vessels with their subs (which were in the area watching how the RN performed) should the opportunity arise. And, apparently, the Argentinean junta declined. Let's say they don't decline and the British realize they are under attack by Soviet subs.
Or, an accidental skirmish occurs between RN ships and Soviet subs in the area. In any case, cooler heads don't prevail and NATO and WP engage in a full scale nuclear holocaust.
Apparently, the USSR had offered the Argentinean junta to sink British vessels with their subs (which were in the area watching how the RN performed) should the opportunity arise. And, apparently, the Argentinean junta declined. Let's say they don't decline and the British realize they are under attack by Soviet subs.
Or, an accidental skirmish occurs between RN ships and Soviet subs in the area. In any case, cooler heads don't prevail and NATO and WP engage in a full scale nuclear holocaust.
Rumours.
In any case, at that point in time Soviet subs sounded like washing machines on full, and the RN (the worlds premier A/S navy) had a library of them. So they would know instantly if a movement was from a Soviet sub.
And the US promptly goes ballistic....as in sending at least one full carrier strike group down Arngentime way...
I just dont see any non-ASB way the conflict could have escalated to suhc an extent, the Russians have to be crazy enough to take on the best A/S force in the world, a ridiculous distance from base, and in what the Americans at least consider their back yard...
Hard to imagine the Soviets wanting to help Argentina anyhow: what would be the motivation?
About the only way I could imagine that war escalating would be if one of Argentina's long-time rivals (Chile? Brazil? Uruguay, for crying out loud?) would decide to back-stab Argentina, even if completely disavowed by Britain. Then would it be possible for a series of interlocking friendships to plunge much of South America into war? And might it be possible for one of the more leftist regimes of the day (I'll be the first to admit that, more or less by design, I know not a lot of South America) call in a favor with the Soviets?
I dunno...the more I think about it, the more farfetched it seems.
About the only way I could imagine that war escalating would be if one of Argentina's long-time rivals (Chile? Brazil? Uruguay, for crying out loud?) would decide to back-stab Argentina, even if completely disavowed by Britain. Then would it be possible for a series of interlocking friendships to plunge much of South America into war? And might it be possible for one of the more leftist regimes of the day (I'll be the first to admit that, more or less by design, I know not a lot of South America) call in a favor with the Soviets?
I dunno...the more I think about it, the more farfetched it seems.
I'm going to stick with the rogue Sub idea, since it is the only way to bring in the Soviet Union, which really didn't care about the survival of the Argentine junta enough to risk a war intentionally.
Maybe if the junta had either purchased or constructed its own attack submarine fleet, and furthermore if they attack submarines sounded a lot like a Soviet Victor class submarine.
Furthermore, if the Argentine Navy succeeded in torpedoing a number of British ships, they it is possible than British anti-submarine aircraft may be allowed to fire at will within the theater of operations, which would then make it possible that they would accidentally drop ordinance on a Soviet Submarine.
This would provoke a diplomatic firestorm, and probably see some angry words at the UN in New York, but I don't see it getting further than that. Even if some lunatic in the Soviet Navy decided to retaliate and sink a British ship, that simply will not lead to a general, let alone world war.
Throwing plausibility out the window entirely, we could, however put a Red Chinese Ballistic Missile Submarine (a Type 92) in the South Atlantic, and have it get attacked by an unidentified aircraft. Since nobody seems to know much about Chinese nuclear strategy, lets say that before going down the captain decides to launch a nuke at a target of opportunity. Care to take it from there?
Maybe if the junta had either purchased or constructed its own attack submarine fleet, and furthermore if they attack submarines sounded a lot like a Soviet Victor class submarine.
Furthermore, if the Argentine Navy succeeded in torpedoing a number of British ships, they it is possible than British anti-submarine aircraft may be allowed to fire at will within the theater of operations, which would then make it possible that they would accidentally drop ordinance on a Soviet Submarine.
This would provoke a diplomatic firestorm, and probably see some angry words at the UN in New York, but I don't see it getting further than that. Even if some lunatic in the Soviet Navy decided to retaliate and sink a British ship, that simply will not lead to a general, let alone world war.
Throwing plausibility out the window entirely, we could, however put a Red Chinese Ballistic Missile Submarine (a Type 92) in the South Atlantic, and have it get attacked by an unidentified aircraft. Since nobody seems to know much about Chinese nuclear strategy, lets say that before going down the captain decides to launch a nuke at a target of opportunity. Care to take it from there?
Last edited:
Would America care if they did that? I can imagine if Argentina did that, it would burn some bridges
The destruction of part of the British Fleet.
A hard one. You would need to get a communist government in Argentina. And if Peron managed something, was to turn real leftism into a marginal political movement. Assuming Peron never comes into power (pre 1970s pod) and communism becomes a major political force, the communists would have to win a civil war to hold into power. Such a thing would severely disrupt the economy and, at the end, the Soviet influence might act against a war with Britain, due possible escalation.
Riain
Banned
Not really, Indonesia never went Communist, yet it got a Sverdlov Cruiser and Tu16 bombers among other things in the early 60s from the Soviets. All the Arg govt has to do is string the Soviets along a bit, even if only to get the US to kick the can themselves in response.
I dunno. At the time (1982), aside from Cuba (and largely because of Cuba) the US took a very proprietary attitude toward South America. The CIA was heavily invested in ensuring that various regimes, if publicly unfriendly to the US, were at least not friendly to the USSR. There was an unspoken US-USSR agreement -- dating back to the Cuban Missile Crisis according to one rumor -- that the arenas of conflict would be Africa and Southeast Asia. No one in South America wanted to be the next Allende.
Yes, you're right. I was thinking in Argentina being a client state helping the thing escalate further.
Riain
Banned
IOTL Peru supported Aregentina to the point of sending a Mirage 5 sqn at the end of the war. Similarly Chile wasn't happy with Argentina for flexing it's muscle.
So how about a later start, May 25 being the invasion date, and the southern winter being used for diplomacy and military buildup. During that time alliances of sorts could form and the issue polarise the world, with many countries screaming about neo-colonialism and others about unprovoked attacks.
The actual fighting, being at a much higher intensity than OTL, spills over to involve other South American countries. Cuba's position in Angola is exploited by the anti-colonialism bloc to widen the sea war in the South Atlantic. South Africa allys itself with Britain. The rest writes itself.
So how about a later start, May 25 being the invasion date, and the southern winter being used for diplomacy and military buildup. During that time alliances of sorts could form and the issue polarise the world, with many countries screaming about neo-colonialism and others about unprovoked attacks.
The actual fighting, being at a much higher intensity than OTL, spills over to involve other South American countries. Cuba's position in Angola is exploited by the anti-colonialism bloc to widen the sea war in the South Atlantic. South Africa allys itself with Britain. The rest writes itself.
The basic trouble with the idea is that the South Atlantic is the arse end of nowhere...
Very few SA nations have any capability to reach it. As for anyone else...the USA is about it (the US didnt think it was possible for the British to reach out that far!).
The Su doesnt have the capabilities to work that far from base.
And noone has anything significant down there - not shipping routes, not bases, not national resources.
There are good reasons why people dont fight wars over deserts...
Very few SA nations have any capability to reach it. As for anyone else...the USA is about it (the US didnt think it was possible for the British to reach out that far!).
The Su doesnt have the capabilities to work that far from base.
And noone has anything significant down there - not shipping routes, not bases, not national resources.
There are good reasons why people dont fight wars over deserts...
Wikipedia said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_Falklands_War
I'd imagine, if any Major Powers entered into the war against the UK then they'd ask the rest of the Commonwealth to help, most of whom would then join.
One of the reasons the Argentines were willing to try a war was that they were considered (or at least diplomatically courted as) a valuable anti-Communist ally of the US. They apparently hoped the US would lean on the British diplomatically. For Argentina to be Soviet clients, well, that's many years' worth of butterflies.
Then again, as this particular dispute goes back to the 1830's, so an alt-Argentina could fight for the 'Malvinas', but not likely at the same time as OTL.
PipBoy2999
Banned
Wait wait wait!
Why does a World War have to involve both the US and Soviet Union? I mean, come on. World War I had the Russians drop out and the US didn't get involved until late in the game. World War 2 kicked off without either one. Just because they're the two heavies, doesn't mean a war without them isn't a world war.
Argentina had covert nuclear weapons program dating back as far as 1969. Lets say they spin up a few more centrifuges and have a few nuclear weapons available, known to no one.
When the British fleet sails for Falklands, a Mirage III launches/drops a small (15kt or less) atomic bomb that severly damages the fleet and disrupts any attempt at retaking the islands. Now, does Britain respond in kind? What do they hit? The Argentinians hit a purely military target at sea, where can the British respond without inflicting massive civilian casualties?
Unable to go nuclear, the British need to reconstituted their invasion force and counter Argi nukes. Chile is encouraged to put pressure on the west, which eventually breaks out into open war. Puru drags Equador into supporting Argentina and comes at Chile from the north. Bolivia, seeing an opportunity to finally get it's long sought ocean front property, joins in.
Now we got ourselves a war.
Why does a World War have to involve both the US and Soviet Union? I mean, come on. World War I had the Russians drop out and the US didn't get involved until late in the game. World War 2 kicked off without either one. Just because they're the two heavies, doesn't mean a war without them isn't a world war.
Argentina had covert nuclear weapons program dating back as far as 1969. Lets say they spin up a few more centrifuges and have a few nuclear weapons available, known to no one.
When the British fleet sails for Falklands, a Mirage III launches/drops a small (15kt or less) atomic bomb that severly damages the fleet and disrupts any attempt at retaking the islands. Now, does Britain respond in kind? What do they hit? The Argentinians hit a purely military target at sea, where can the British respond without inflicting massive civilian casualties?
Unable to go nuclear, the British need to reconstituted their invasion force and counter Argi nukes. Chile is encouraged to put pressure on the west, which eventually breaks out into open war. Puru drags Equador into supporting Argentina and comes at Chile from the north. Bolivia, seeing an opportunity to finally get it's long sought ocean front property, joins in.
Now we got ourselves a war.
Well, it's not that hart to get the Chileneans in (Argentina feared a Chilenean attack IOTL, so it left soldiers used to cold weather protecting the Patagonian border instead of sending them to the islands). And if the Chileanens are in, Perú might join Argentina and attacked Chile's Northern provinces. Perú was governed by nationalists, and its government wasn't part of the pro-american military governments who ruled in the southern cone... Yet this doesn't mean he was a Soviet client, of course.