US joins the Falklands War

Would there be an Argentina left? Yes.
If the US was actively involved in the war I would expect it to be similar to the original war. The US would provide material support to the UK. What would change would be the diversion of a carrier group to the Falklands, possibly bombing military facilities on the mainland. The end result of the war would probably be a return to the status quo, depending on how much pressure is put on Argentina you might get luckily and get recognition of British sovereignty over the Falkland’s.
 

Orsino

Banned
With full US backing the British might be a bit bolder in the Falklands and pull their punches less, but I dont think an attack on the Argentinian mainland or any such escalation would be in the Anglo-American interest...so pretty much the same, although American pressure might have ultimately meant a more definitive and permanant close to the issue.
 

Orsino

Banned
It would also, to my mind, be the only occasion since the war when the USA has been motivated to act in British interest rather than visa versa.
 
It would also, to my mind, be the only occasion since the war when the USA has been motivated to act in British interest rather than visa versa.

What would you call WWI? It was certainly not really in America's interest to become involved militarily.
 

Thanos6

Banned
Here's an ASB for you:

The US decides the UK coming to get the Falklands violates the Monroe Doctrine and they back Argentina. ;)

Yes, I know this would never ever happen, but the potential results could be amusing. Or horrifying. Or both.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Besides the fact that the war ends in about six hours, which is how long it would take to get a strike package over the Islands?


Probably the impact on British self confidence. The Falklands allowed the UK to show that they could still project force as a military power without relying on the U.S. to do the heavy logistical work. (Yes it did rather dramatically point out the limits of that ability to project force, but the RN was able to demonstrate that it could operate in a hostile enviroment a third of the Planet from home. Shame that the British government decided to let that ability die off.)

The U.S. shows up off the Falklands with a couple CBGs and a MEU or three that opprotunity goes away.
 
Here's an ASB for you:

The US decides the UK coming to get the Falklands violates the Monroe Doctrine and they back Argentina. ;)

Yes, I know this would never ever happen, but the potential results could be amusing. Or horrifying. Or both.

If the US intervened actively (militarily) on the side of Argentina UK forces could then retaliate by attacking and rounding up the thousands of hostages... er...American military personal based in the UK and its territories.

If the US support of Argentina was diplomatic in nature, then the UK could pull a France and expel all American military personal from the UK
 

Orsino

Banned
It would also, to my mind, be the only occasion since the war when the USA has been motivated to act in British interest rather than visa versa.
What would you call WWI? It was certainly not really in America's interest to become involved militarily.


Hence "since the war", although to be fair I was being slightly disingenuous, on a tactical level the US have protected british interests in combined operations since then. But generally the USA exchanges the promise of mutual defence aginst potential threats for real world short-term support and concessions. I can't see the USA ever becoming involved in the Falklands.
 

Orsino

Banned
Here's an ASB for you:

The US decides the UK coming to get the Falklands violates the Monroe Doctrine and they back Argentina. ;)

Yes, I know this would never ever happen, but the potential results could be amusing. Or horrifying. Or both.
The UK would be forced to back down pretty quickly, no immediate apocalyptic consequences, the US and UK are never going to engage in all out war over the Falklands, but the subsequent break in relations would have countless butterflies.

The UK has been an integeral part of US strategic planning for a long time, and a frequent partner in operations, most every war the USA has fought since then would of taken a different course, assuming the US didn't decide to strong-arm the UK into continued support.
 
The U.S. shows up off the Falklands with a couple CBGs and a MEU or three that opprotunity goes away.

A 'couple' of CBGs would have been the textbook example of 'clubbing baby seals' for all time!

One USN CBG with it's E-2s on station and fighters in the air would have ended the air threat to the task force. The Argentines had to know that.

My personal opinion is that attacks on the mainland would not happen, they aren't needed. If the Argentine planes approached the islands or the task force they would be intercepted and shot down. Make this public and make it clear. The battle for public opinion goes well that way.
The USN involvement would be a single carrier and it's escorts and they would do air defense only, no airstrikes and no amphibs working in the actual invasion. Maybe the carrier only has fighters and some ASW assets for self defense.
This way the UK gets to save face and do the actual heavy lifting in liberating the islands. And if the 'Atlantic Conveyor' doesn't get nailed the troops get their Chinooks which probably takes 'The Yomper' out of popular culture in the UK. Small price to pay.
 
Last edited:
A lot of people on this site really need to read the Monroe Doctrine again; it does not mean what they seem to think it means.

The Monroe doctrine means exactly what the US government wants it to mean. They have used it as a justification of there actions and equally ignored its principles when it suited them. Thats not a critisicm thats just politics.
 
Here's an ASB for you:

The US decides the UK coming to get the Falklands violates the Monroe Doctrine and they back Argentina. ;)

Yes, I know this would never ever happen, but the potential results could be amusing. Or horrifying. Or both.

If the USA applied the Monroe Doctrine and they back Argentina, they will piss also the French and the Dutch who still had territories in the western hemisphere ; Guadeloupe, Martinique and Guyane for the French, Saint Martin for the Dutch.

So these three european countries convinced the rest of the EEC members (Ireland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Germany, Denmark, Italy and Greece) to quit NATO and the sole ally of the USA who stay in Europe will be Turkey...

Spain and Portugal were not EEC members, but candidates and their entry was set for 1986...

This is why it is ASB... The USA will lost every european allies...
 

Riain

Banned
At the time the official USN appreciation was that the weather would be too rough for carrier operations, but I think that's a bit pessimistic. More realistic would be USAF C5s, KC10s and E3s doing what the small Brit tankers and transports struggled with and giving AWACS cover on occasion.
 

Orry

Donor
Monthly Donor
Plus side - British lose less troops to Argi air attacks

Minus side - British lose more troops to 'friendly fire'
 
Plus side - British lose less troops to Argi air attacks

Minus side - British lose more troops to 'friendly fire'

1/ F-14/AIM-54= 0 casualties to air attack, honestly 1 squadron is a 4x increase in intercept range. do we need to add how much raid warning a E-2 gives you /

2/Dude mellow your harshness blue on blue happens in every combat situation fact of life. In fact the term was coined at Hereford and blue on blue happened amongst UK troops in the Falklands.

But come on UK vs Argentina is already a smackdown add USN support and its a walkover even if its limited to E-2/ES-3 elint and F-14 air defense
 
Top