AHC: Turn the Falklands War into a World War

[LNSS]

I like the idea of WWIII without Soviets or Americans. Maybe the argentine nuke happens, alliances at first would be:

South American Alliance:
Argentina
Bolivia

Allies:
United Kingdom
France (?)
Chile

Maybe the rest of latin america joins the South American Alliance (all of latin america was extremely supportive of Argentina), and the United States would intervene but how?

 

[fastmongrel]

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?

If Argentina started throwing nukes around the US is going to come down on them like a ton of bricks. The US was annoyed with Argentina for invading, it was also annoyed with Britain for sending a fleet iirc most of the US population was pro Argentina and anti Britain but the US (Reagan went against his advisers) government sided with Britain because of the big picture. British armed forces were a small but vital part of NATO and a big chunk of the Royal Navy sitting on the bottom of the South Atlantic is a massive victory for the USSR. I dont think the US was too bothered when it was guns, bombs and torpedoes but nukes. I can imagine a USN fleet being despatched pretty quickly to enforce the peace and stomping anyone who got in the way.

 

[Douglas]

iirc most of the US population was pro Argentina and anti Britain

You do not recall correctly.

 

[fastmongrel]

You do not recall correctly.

Well I remember one of the big TV channels did a nationwide survey and something like 60 or 70% of those asked thought Argentina had right on there side. Certainly opinions might have changed after Reagan and Haig came down on the British side and the Senate and Congress ratified that stance. However in early April the US publics sympathies were definitely not pro the Falkland islanders right not to be rounded up by an Argentinian junta and deported from their home. This was probably a gut anti colonialism reaction not specifically an anti British feeling.

 

[galveston bay]

Well I remember one of the big TV channels did a nationwide survey and something like 60 or 70% of those asked thought Argentina had right on there side. Certainly opinions might have changed after Reagan and Haig came down on the British side and the Senate and Congress ratified that stance. However in early April the US publics sympathies were definitely not pro the Falkland islanders right not to be rounded up by an Argentinian junta and deported from their home. This was probably a gut anti colonialism reaction not specifically an anti British feeling.

I was in college in 1982, and in the Houston area certainly the feeling was pro-British. Most people I remember thought it was a greedy and completely unnecessary land grab by the Argies from the beginning. Although certainly I remember some friends (and myself) admiring the courage of the Argie pilots

My guess the best way to make the Falklands War go global is for the Soviets to see it an opportunity. Most of the striking power (and ASW) strength of the RN is in the South Atlantic, woefully out of position and some of the best units of the British Army are too. The USN is trying to cover the gaps, but a major portion of the NATO ASW force is out of position. So the Soviet Navy is never going to get a better shot.

 

[Hapsburg]

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.

But they did get involved at some point. Russia was not only there for most of WWI, they were a major contributor to its beginning. The US prior and during WWI was not a major world power in the same way that Russia was, so its entry until later on is irrelevant.
And Russia was part of WW2 from early on, as well; invasion of Poland and all that jazz, and its contribution to the Allied side was hugely important.

Just because they're the two heavies, doesn't mean a war without them isn't a world war.

Yes, it does. A war the size of a World War must involve the most powerful nations of their time at some point, and be fought across the globe.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

At no point did a majority in the US favor Argentina. Argentina was quite dismayed to find public sentiment going five to one in the US for the UK.

Reagan didn't go against his top advisers, just fools like Elliot Abrams and Jeanne Kirkpatrick who were too stupid to see the difference between a vital ally like the UK and a dying military junta which started the invasion in hope of avoiding criminal trials when the regime collapsed.

 

[Riain]

Reagan didn't go against his top advisers, just fools like Elliot Abrams and Jeanne Kirkpatrick who were too stupid to see the difference between a vital ally like the UK and a dying military junta which started the invasion in hope of avoiding criminal trials when the regime collapsed.

Yes, the US was confused between momentary support for an anti-communist regime and a long standing and largely natural alliance with the British. This always surprises me, I mean the US was handing Britain it's designs for advanced nuclear warheads so the Brits could build their own versions, yet when it came to war they didn't instantly publicly support Britain.

 

[Farnsworth]

I think the key here would be to get only proxy support from the US and/or the USSR. I don't think you'd get a world war out of it in that case, but maybe you could have it spark more than just a regional conflict like in OTL. Did Argentina have any allies outside of the Americas at the time that would be willing to throw their weight into it? Or, I'm not sure how plausible it would be, but given that South Africa cut relations with Argentina in OTL, is it possible they give more direct support? And resulting from that, I'm not sure of their relations with other African states at the time, but is there something that could spark a conflict there? Maybe have things escalate to the point where SA uses a nuke in defense? Not my area of expertise, so I'm just kinda throwing out thoughts, but you'd be looking at the UK, South Africa vs. Argentina, south African states of choice and their backers. That plus a conflict in South America with Chile attacking Argentina and maybe that's something.

 

[Andrew Hudson]

The only possibility I can see would be for Britain to be looosing the with the two aircraft carriers either sunk or out of action and Britain firing a Polaris missile at Argentina possibly at Commodoro Rivadavia or Ushaia and the Soviet Union and the United States joining in. However the use of nuclear weapons would probably bring the superpowers in to stop the war as the United States would be reluctant to support Britain.

I would be surprised if the bulk of opinion in the USA was pro-Argentina. Jimmy Carter was pro-British. Thatcher was too important an ally of the Americans to risk alienating particularly as they regarded Britain as an airstrip. I would be surprised if the Soviet Union would have sunk any British warships they had there own problems with Argentina over its Antarctic claims and restricted their activities to out of date satellite photographs to get the price of grain down. Far better to have the Royal Navy tied up in the South Atlantic and Argentina at odds with the United States.

If Britain had used nuclear weapons it could have escalated