AHC: Make the Falklands Argentinian by 2012

Makemakean

Now here's an alternate history challenge for you, seeing these islands keep becoming politically relevant over and over again.

Make the Falkland Islands Argentinian by 2012, with a PoD no earlier than 20 June 1982, that is the day the British forces recaptured the South Sandwich Islands and six days after the Argentinian forces had officially surrendered.
 

d32123

Banned
Basically you have to have the U.S. adopt a pro-Argentine position as a prerequisite for this to happen. Not sure how to do that.
 

Garrison

Donor
Sorry but this is one of those things where you really would need Skippy the ASB to intervene because there is no way the UK is going to consider giving up the islands after the war. And there is no way the US is going to try and squeeze an important ally who happens to sit on the UN Security Council for the sake of the Argentinians.
 

Revolutionary Avocado

Very sketchy and probably ASB, but maybe over the course of the 1980s, there is a political crisis in the UK, maybe related to The Troubles (maybe an Irish bombing assassinates a moderate Labour PM?). Power swings to the far right, which establishes fairly autocratic rule, and then eventually to the far left. This coincides with a stable, centre-left Argentine government emerging, which asks for a referendum on independence in the Falklands. The referendum is granted by the new leftist government, which sees the Falklands as a relic of colonialism. The people of the Falklands, who are unnerved by the continuing instability in the UK and attracted to stable and fast-growing Argentina, vote for autonomous union with Argentina by a slim margin, with a negotiated settlement including maintaining British citizenship for the Falkland Islanders.


Completely ASB?
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Garrison said:
Sorry but this is one of those things where you really would need Skippy the ASB to intervene because there is no way the UK is going to consider giving up the islands after the war. And there is no way the US is going to try and squeeze an important ally who happens to sit on the UN Security Council for the sake of the Argentinians.
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's not that hard if you allow a POD before 1982, but after it, it's about as politically viable as the USA demolishing the Statue of Liberty to build a block of flats.
 

Garrison

Donor
azander12 said:
Very sketchy and probably ASB, but maybe over the course of the 1980s, there is a political crisis in the UK, maybe related to The Troubles (maybe an Irish bombing assassinates a moderate Labour PM?). Power swings to the far right, which establishes fairly autocratic rule, and then eventually to the far left. This coincides with a stable, centre-left Argentine government emerging, which asks for a referendum on independence in the Falklands. The referendum is granted by the new leftist government, which sees the Falklands as a relic of colonialism. The people of the Falklands, who are unnerved by the continuing instability in the UK and attracted to stable and fast-growing Argentina, vote for autonomous union with Argentina by a slim margin, with a negotiated settlement including maintaining British citizenship for the Falkland Islanders.


Completely ASB?
Click to expand...

Yes because as has been pointed out post Falklands war no remotely likely UK government is going to negotiate and the Islanders just aren't going to vote for joining Argentina.

Now if the Argentines could have delayed their invasion until 1983 then it's a different picture; military cuts and a new nationality act would have left the UK unable to intervene and the Islanders no longer UK citizens. Even that is unlikely given the trouble the Argentine Junta was in.
 

Armored Diplomacy

How about if Argentina invades in 2003, during or immediately after the invasion of Iraq? By then, British forces were too stretched to respond immediately. The Royal Navy had a significant force to support the Iraq War, including the carrier HMS Ark Royal. The British Army is stretched, having deployed large forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Royal Air Force has significant resources deployed there to support them.

Also, the British Army has a fairly large contingent deployed in Germany, and a significant RAF contingent on Cyprus.

So British forces are stretched, and mobilizing a proper response will be a long and hard process. The US can invoke the NATO charter if the British attempt to withdraw from Afghanistan, and push hard for Britain to keep forces in Iraq, while pressuring Argentina and leading a sanctions drive. At the same time, it will probably be impossible to take the islands without the Royal Navy's ships deployed in the Persian Gulf, especially Ark Royal. If Argentina does not evacuate, or if insufficient pressure is applied, the British will have to choose between disengagement from Iraq or letting the islands stay permanently Argentine.

I suspect that the British would begin thinning down their RN contingent in the Gulf at the very least, and would probably take at least some army and RAF forces out of the country and maybe from Afghanistan and Germany. Putting them together will take time, time enough for Argentina to properly prepare.

I would expect Argentina, if it is smart, to have learned from its past mistakes and stage a massive military buildup. This means upgrading its air force and navy, and maybe buying anti-ship missiles. The Argentines will be wise to spend the time fortifying the islands, because a British counterattack, like last time, will always be on the verge of disaster. If the Argentines create one disaster like sinking a carrier, its over.
 

Garrison

Donor
Peter Parker said:
How about if Argentina invades in 2003, during or immediately after the invasion of Iraq? By then, British forces were too stretched to respond immediately. The Royal Navy had a significant force to support the Iraq War, including the carrier HMS Ark Royal. The British Army is stretched, having deployed large forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Royal Air Force has significant resources deployed there to support them.
Click to expand...

Again not possible, the Argentine armed forces haven't been updated since the 1980's, they can barely pay the soldiers salaries never mind invest in modern weaponry, that's part of why they are currently trying economic blackmail. The massively upgraded defences on the Falklands would have made short work of them even during the Second Gulf War.
 

Fellatio Nelson

Act in haste, repent at leisure, and all that. Naturally it'd delay the redeployment of some assets, but speed that of others (who'd already be on a war-footing).

IF the Argentinians could've retaken the Islands...

By 2003 RN submarines were already operating cruise missiles, so targets on the Islands - and likely Argentina, too, given the precision of such weapons - would prove easy targets. They also had Spearfish torpedoes by then, which actually work quite well. Not too tricky to disable airfields, communications centres etc. (And assuming the US continues to sell Tomahawk cruise missiles, which I kind of think they would, they could be bought in quantity and carried down with the Task Force.)

The Sea Harrier FA2 was in service; which, although still subsonic and relatively short-ranged, mounted a very advanced radar system alongside Amraam - certainly capable of keeping at arms length the Argentinian air force.

There would've also been AEW helicopters, unlike in 1982, so surprise by low flying aircraft would've been largely mitigate.

Although air defence still hinged on (upgraded since 1982) Type 42s, other surface ships carried Sea Wolf and close in weaponry, in addition to significant soft-kill systems. The amphibious cadre was also better placed.

Remember, too, that in 1982 the departure of much of the RN and RM from the NATO area caused quite a few concerns for its allies.
 

Armored Diplomacy

Well, we could always have another POD where Argentina is in a better economic situation and can invest more in a modern military.

Or perhaps Argentina's economic crisis is delayed long enough for a military buildup to begin, so by the time it hits, it already has a small fleet of modern fighters, and has a few more warships and submarines. Then, when the crisis hits, the leadership tries to invoke nationalist sentiment with a military adventure.
 

Garrison

Donor
Peter Parker said:
Well, we could always have another POD where Argentina is in a better economic situation and can invest more in a modern military.

Or perhaps Argentina's economic crisis is delayed long enough for a military buildup to begin, so by the time it hits, it already has a small fleet of modern fighters, and has a few more warships and submarines. Then, when the crisis hits, the leadership tries to invoke nationalist sentiment with a military adventure.
Click to expand...

From 1982 until today the Argentine military has not had any upgrades, none, zero; even when times were economically good Argentina didn't spend money on the miltary and given the record of the Junta you can hardly blame them. At the same time Falklands defence were heavily upgraded, there is no military option for the Argentines to take the islands with a POD after the war. I know ASB gets overused as a term here but really the OP is ASB.
 

Armored Diplomacy

Garrison said:
From 1982 until today the Argentine military has not had any upgrades, none, zero; even when times were economically good Argentina didn't spend money on the miltary and given the record of the Junta you can hardly blame them. At the same time Falklands defence were heavily upgraded, there is no military option for the Argentines to take the islands with a POD after the war. I know ASB gets overused as a term here but really the OP is ASB.
Click to expand...

We can always have some POD that causes Argentina to upgrade. This is alternate history, remember.
 

Garrison

Donor
Peter Parker said:
We can always have some POD that causes Argentina to upgrade. This is alternate history, remember.
Click to expand...

Then please propose a credible one, to date all I'm seeing is people blithely ignoring the realities of the Argentine economy and military situation in the last 30 years and assuming the Falklands have the same scant defences as they did in 1982 and proceeding to make unrealistic proposals.
 
Alex Richards

Alex Richards

Donor
Peter Parker said:
How about if Argentina invades in 2003, during or immediately after the invasion of Iraq? By then, British forces were too stretched to respond immediately. The Royal Navy had a significant force to support the Iraq War, including the carrier HMS Ark Royal. The British Army is stretched, having deployed large forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Royal Air Force has significant resources deployed there to support them.

Also, the British Army has a fairly large contingent deployed in Germany, and a significant RAF contingent on Cyprus.

So British forces are stretched, and mobilizing a proper response will be a long and hard process. The US can invoke the NATO charter if the British attempt to withdraw from Afghanistan, and push hard for Britain to keep forces in Iraq, while pressuring Argentina and leading a sanctions drive. At the same time, it will probably be impossible to take the islands without the Royal Navy's ships deployed in the Persian Gulf, especially Ark Royal. If Argentina does not evacuate, or if insufficient pressure is applied, the British will have to choose between disengagement from Iraq or letting the islands stay permanently Argentine.

I suspect that the British would begin thinning down their RN contingent in the Gulf at the very least, and would probably take at least some army and RAF forces out of the country and maybe from Afghanistan and Germany. Putting them together will take time, time enough for Argentina to properly prepare.

I would expect Argentina, if it is smart, to have learned from its past mistakes and stage a massive military buildup. This means upgrading its air force and navy, and maybe buying anti-ship missiles. The Argentines will be wise to spend the time fortifying the islands, because a British counterattack, like last time, will always be on the verge of disaster. If the Argentines create one disaster like sinking a carrier, its over.
Click to expand...

Britain will in this situation turn around and basically say 'sorry, but defending our territory has to come first. Of course, if you lend a bit of support this'll go a lot quicker and we can get back to supporting you in Iraq sooner.
 
Jape

Jape

Alex Richards said:
Britain will in this situation turn around and basically say 'sorry, but defending our territory has to come first. Of course, if you lend a bit of support this'll go a lot quicker and we can get back to supporting you in Iraq sooner.
Click to expand...

Yeah basically. Plus Bush will no doubt send a *cough* polite communique to Buenos Aires asking why they're bothering America's main ally at a crucial moment for US foreign policy. There's no Red Menace in 2003, Washington's official fence sitting isn't going to happen a second time round.
 

Garrison

Donor
Alex Richards said:
Britain will in this situation turn around and basically say 'sorry, but defending our territory has to come first. Of course, if you lend a bit of support this'll go a lot quicker and we can get back to supporting you in Iraq sooner.
Click to expand...

This is another thing that some posters are forgetting; the Argentines launched the 1982 invasion in the belief that British wouldn't mount more than token resistance and some diplomatic protests. Any time after the war they can have no illusion that the British will not fight and no Argentine government is going to deliberately start another war.
 

NothingNow

Banned
Peter Parker said:
How about if Argentina invades in 2003, during or immediately after the invasion of Iraq? By then, British forces were too stretched to respond immediately. The Royal Navy had a significant force to support the Iraq War, including the carrier HMS Ark Royal. The British Army is stretched, having deployed large forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Royal Air Force has significant resources deployed there to support them.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you've just got the US Navy involved as well. With the Kennedy's Carrier Group, along with either the Nimitz or Lincoln Carrier groups becoming involved along with some Los Angles class.

And that's assuming the Argentines can even land enough men on the islands to overwhelm the British Army detachment, while the RAF gets to see how well Tornado F3s can do in the anti-shipping role while awaiting reinforcements, and the RN gets to test out how well Type 23s do in combat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top