DBWI What if war over the Falklands?
- Thread starter Xgentis
- Start date
Alex Richards
Donor
Given the Argentine shambles in Chile a couple of years later, I think they could have been beaten, provided that the British government actually showed some backbone for once and mounted a military response to counter them. Perhaps Thatcher gets enough popularity not to lose to Foot in 83 as a result of this.
It's ASB imo. Not even Galtieri can seriously believe they can beat the UK? Besides, I'm sure Tatcher would call on NATO's policy of 'an attack on one is an attack on all'.
The thing about dictators is their sense of self-preservation. That's why Franco stayed out of World War II, and why Stalin wouldn't let the Cold War turn hot. And nobody (not even Leopoldo Galtieri) is that retarded that they can seriously think Argentina can defeat the United Kingdom in a war, let alone the entire NATO. To launch an invasion of the Falkland Islands guarantees SAS troops marching down the streets of Buenos Aires to kick Galtieri out of office within weeks.
Sorry, but a Falklands invasion is borderline ASB.
The thing about dictators is their sense of self-preservation. That's why Franco stayed out of World War II, and why Stalin wouldn't let the Cold War turn hot. And nobody (not even Leopoldo Galtieri) is that retarded that they can seriously think Argentina can defeat the United Kingdom in a war, let alone the entire NATO. To launch an invasion of the Falkland Islands guarantees SAS troops marching down the streets of Buenos Aires to kick Galtieri out of office within weeks.
Sorry, but a Falklands invasion is borderline ASB.
Seriously? The British were thousands of miles away, going through economic problems and dealing with a downsized navy.
I don't see any way the government could convince the public that going to war over some rock in South America is worth it.
I say Britain lets in happen, kind of how India took Gao; the empire was practically dead anyway and keeping the Falklands would be pointless.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Why the hell would Argentina want to launch an attack on some god forsaken Islands full of Sheep, Penguins and little else?
Given the state of the RN at the time assuming the Argies could take it Britain is screwed the Argies would likely time their attack for the South Atlantic Winter, and once that kicks up Britain has no real options but subs or nukes
This assumes that there is no intervention by anyone else
Given the state of the RN at the time assuming the Argies could take it Britain is screwed the Argies would likely time their attack for the South Atlantic Winter, and once that kicks up Britain has no real options but subs or nukes
This assumes that there is no intervention by anyone else
Nah, it's full on n'importe quoi and ASB. Why Tatcher would counter-attack a bastion of the same conservative ideological bases, anyway 
The premises of said a war are really ASB.
The premises of said a war are really ASB.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
do you people forget that just because the UK isn't a superpower anymore that its still a great power, the only great power (I believe) that can project power on a global basis?
Argentina stands no chance against the UK, and the UK wouldn't even need NATOs help.
Argentina stands no chance against the UK, and the UK wouldn't even need NATOs help.
France has demonstrated that they can project power on a global basis too without the need of allies for transport as shown in their peacekeeping operation.
d32123
Banned
It would have been a stupid unwinnable war for Argentina, and would probably hurt their claim on the Malvinas in the long run. I doubt you'd see so much support from other South American countries behind their claim if they'd actually tried taking it by force. Britain would curbstomp them.
For the British, winning this war would probably be a huge boost to national pride.
For the Falkland Islanders, I imagine that this would make them extremely paranoid to say the least!
The whole thing just doesn't seem very plausible.
For the British, winning this war would probably be a huge boost to national pride.
For the Falkland Islanders, I imagine that this would make them extremely paranoid to say the least!
The whole thing just doesn't seem very plausible.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Unwinnable?It would have been a stupid unwinnable war for Argentina, and would probably hurt their claim on the Malvinas in the long run. I doubt you'd see so much support from other South American countries behind their claim if they'd actually tried taking it by force. Britain would curbstomp them.
For the British, winning this war would probably be a huge boost to national pride.
For the Falkland Islanders, I imagine that this would make them extremely paranoid to say the least!
The whole thing just doesn't seem very plausible.
Both sides are relatively even in surface combatants and once the Argies take the Islands things are over for several months as they would time it to be covered by the Southern winter, say seize the Islands in June so they have until September or October to dig in unmolested
Once that's done the British are stuck projecting power at long range against a foe dug in for several months with modern weapons about as good as theirs
The only real advantage the Brits have is in subs, and once the runways are expanded that is useless, and nukes, and Britain is not going to nuke Argentina over some islands full of sheep and penguins in the middle of nowhere
I don't want to think of the consequences. A conservative govermnet up to the late 80 maybe early 90s
A Britain that goes its own way in the EU and niot supporting the full integration. We wqould live in an Europe of quarreling petty states with national interests taking precedence over the common good. We would NOT live in a prosperous superpower...
Please go away with such silly ideas... Shudder
A Britain that goes its own way in the EU and niot supporting the full integration. We wqould live in an Europe of quarreling petty states with national interests taking precedence over the common good. We would NOT live in a prosperous superpower...
Please go away with such silly ideas... Shudder
Well the only thing the UK is 'super' in is budget cuts..
With a war behind her, I believe Thatcher would have won in 83, though it'd be very, very close given how bad the economy still was then.
You've got to remember just how unpopular Thatcher was, even before her election in 1977.
I wonder whether the cuts in the defence budget we saw in the late 80's/early 90's would have happened in this TL? Too many butterflies by that point I guess, but I'd imagine if Britain gets involved in a war in 1982, the defence cuts wouldn't be going ahead, regardless of the result.
Ooc-The pod for this could be something like Callaghan losing a vote of no confidence in 1977, leading to a Tory victory. I think you need a pre-Falklands pod in order to bring about a win for labour under Foot, I've set the pod in 1977 so Thatcher is forced in to an ill-timed 82 election. If the economy is seemingly making progress, Thatcher probably wins regardless of her personal popularity-all be it with a reduced majority.