Wider Falklands War ?

This post is based on a scenario I read in STARKE'S INT'L LAW, which discussed how during the Falklands conflict had a RN vessel encountered an argie ship outside the immediate conflict area, say in the Pacific, they probably wouldn't have engaged each other given the conflict's geographically limited area. Any thoughts ?
 
Russia & Britian did the same thing during the Crimea, agreeing not to fight in the Pacific- and even co-operating in SAR in the northern Alaska/Siberia area.

The Idea of total war is a resent [Napolean] thing. and if whe are [as some military theorist think] returning to a time of limited wars, whe may see more of this in the future.
 
DuQuense said:
Russia & Britian did the same thing during the Crimea, agreeing not to fight in the Pacific

They did fight in the Pacific. There was a British attack on the Russian outposts on Kamchatka. (It was a complete shambles.)
 
The British - although the USA propped the Junta seeing them as the biggest anti-Communist power in the region (particularly as they were next door to Chile), Britain are more important to the USA in the long run being a lynch-pin in NATO's plans against the Warsaw Pact.
 
WngMasterD said:
Who would the Americans side with? If i recall we had agreements with both nations

The USA helped the UK during the war, selling 100 AIM9L Sidewinders missiles, sending KC-135s to Mildenhall to replace the Victors who were sent to Wideawake, 6 millions litres of gas, ECM systems, ammo and some intel.
 
Top