Falklands War sparks WWIII

[Ravenflight]

Making a new thread as I don't want to Shanghai the other Falklands War thread.

From what I know (limited) of the Falklands War, the Soviets (and others, including Israel interestingly) supported the Argentinians, and the USA (and others) supported the Brits.

I remember the Falklands war, being in the military at the time, and the thoughts were 'I wonder if we'll get involved'. Looking back on it, I don't think there was any real risk of this going to goobal conflict... indeed there was probably more risk of the Gulf Wars ending in global conflict than the Falklands War ending in Global conflict, but stranger things have happened throughout history.

So, let's have it... What scenario would end up with the Falklands ending in global war (nuclear or otherwise).

One obvious (to me) example is either the Soviets or USA flexing more muscle, and the other saying 'keep out' which leads to militay accidents etc.

I think that there were so many checks and balances to stop somethig escallating out of control, but who knows?

I don't know the political situation on both Soviet and the USA (short of knowing who was in power). There have been many books written and movies made about military coups in the last days o the Soviet Union, is that another possibility?

 

[GarethC]

Argentina was a mostly-Catholic-aligned right-wing military junta, whose internal security forces were infamous for stealing newborn babies for childless senior officers to adopt, from their left-intellectual mothers still in recovery on the maternity ward, before taking the parents out over the South Atlantic in a Hercules and throwing them out the back door without parachutes. They were as anathema to Communism as it is possible for a regime to be. The 20,000-odd "Disappeared" who were murdered by the regime were the people who were most likely to be sympathetic to the USSR.

The Soviet Union wanted nothing more than to eat popcorn while watching the war on the 11'o'clock news. Whoever loses, they win.

 

[gloster meteor mk3]

Actually the Soviets helped Britain in the first couple of days. The sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands. The British attache was talking to his American opposite number when a soviet admiral bumps into him and say ' are our submarines being of help'.

 

[Philosophical Zombie]

Actually the Soviets helped Britain in the first couple of days. The sent a nuclear sub to the Falklands. The British attache was talking to his American opposite number when a soviet admiral bumps into him and say ' are our submarines being of help'.

On the opposite side, Brazil and the Soviet Union cooperated in an attempt to provide arms and supplies to Argentina.

Source: http://en.mercopress.com/2012/04/23...n-for-argentina-during-the-falklands-conflict

 

[gloster meteor mk3]

If the Argies sink both of our carriers and two of our troop ships would see britain possibly going nuclear either at the Argies or the French if they did not stop selling exocets to the argies.

 

[Philosophical Zombie]

Alternate possibility I proposed in the other thread: the war turns into a general South American War.

Possible scenario: Chile is convinced by Britain to enter the war due to long-term territorial conflicts with Argentina. In response, Bolivia and Peru declare war, Bolivia to regain access to the sea, Peru in support. Ecuador then sides with Chile and Britain due to their own long-standing territorial claims on Peru.

At a later point in the conflict, which is going on longer in this world due to better strategy and planning by the Argentinians, the secret support by Venezuela and Brazil in support of Argentina is discovered, leading to a diplomatic crisis between them and London.

Diplomatic wildcards: Israel, Libya, France, Soviet Union

 

[sparky42]

If the Argies sink both of our carriers and two of our troop ships would see britain possibly going nuclear either at the Argies or the French if they did not stop selling exocets to the argies.

Oh for the love of God, cut out the Rule Britannia (UK nationalism not the banned user) crap, NO the UK would not nuke France for selling weapons. Since the US had already offered a replacement ship if the carriers were lost that most likely would have prevented nukes.

 

[gloster meteor mk3]

yes we would not nuke France but please remember this was Maggie at the helm and the very threat of nukes makes it a possibility. Really the Americans would let us borrow a Nimitz class super carrier is that with the air wing or would he have to pay for that as well as the carrier plus the Americans would have to take the tactical nukes off the carrier unless they wish to break the treaty of Tlatelolco which would cause an out rage in the UN.It was the reason why we took the ENTIRE we. 177 free fall tactical nuclear bombs from the fleet when it was still in the North Atlantic. We had a polaris nuclear sub on the Equator just in case of the task force being sunk or failling to retake the islands.

 

[Mr.J]

Wait, I thought the US leaned towards Argentina because Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other hardliners in the Reagan administration thought supporting right-wing regimes in Latin America was priority 1?

 

[Philosophical Zombie]

Oh for the love of God, cut out the Rule Britannia (UK nationalism not the banned user) crap, NO the UK would not nuke France for selling weapons. Since the US had already offered a replacement ship if the carriers were lost that most likely would have prevented nukes.

I believe what he is referring to is the incident where Thatcher threatened to nuke Argentina unless France provided them with exocet codes.

 

[Star Chamber]

No, it doesn't. Thatcher ruled out bombing Argentina proper. She wasn't going to use nuclear weapons here. Sorry to interrupt your masturbatory fantasies.

 

[sparky42]

yes we would not nuke France but please remember this was Maggie at the helm and the very threat of nukes makes it a possibility.

The French helped the UK with tech specs of the missiles and allowed the RN to practice against French aircraft that the Argentinians had. Even after Charlie pissed her off she didn't go nuts. She would not go nuts against the French.

 

[Mr.J]

No, it doesn't. Thatcher ruled out bombing Argentina proper. She wasn't going to use nuclear weapons here. Sorry to interrupt your masturbatory fantasies.

Thank you! I may not be exactly pro-Thatcher but she wasn't crazier than Mao, for crying out loud!

 

[Dan1988]

Wait, I thought the US leaned towards Argentina because Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other hardliners in the Reagan administration thought supporting right-wing regimes in Latin America was priority 1?

The US was actually neutral because Washington was torn between supporting Argentina and Reagan's cultivation of a friendship with Maggie. So they basically acted as if the Falklands weren't their problem, though they unofficially gave covert support to the UK.

 

[sparky42]

Wait, I thought the US leaned towards Argentina because Jeanne Kirkpatrick and other hardliners in the Reagan administration thought supporting right-wing regimes in Latin America was priority 1?

Some of the Administration did support Argentina but by the time it came to shooting they were support ing the UK, with NATO warstocks being freed up, fuel supplies to support the Vulcan raid (from memory) and according to the declassified UK documents offered one of the USN Amphibious ships, one of the LHD's I think

 

[gloster meteor mk3]

She threatened the French unless they gave the 'codes' for the deactivation of the exocets she would nuke the Argies. Now unless maggie was insane in 1982 which i doubt would she push the big RED BUTTON and unleash hell upon the world who knows.

 

[Philosophical Zombie]

She threatened the French unless they gave the 'codes' for the deactivation of the exocets she would nuke the Argies. Now unless maggie was insane in 1982 which i doubt would she push the big RED BUTTON and unleash hell upon the world who knows.

What happens in a hypothetical scenario where François Mitterrand calls her bluff, then, and refuses to give her the codes?

Sub-scenario: let's say he leaks the threat to the French press. What happens then?

 

[sparky42]

What happens in a hypothetical scenario where François Mitterrand calls her bluff, then, and refuses to give her the codes?

Sub-scenario: let's say he leaks the threat to the French press. What happens then?

I'd really doubt that she would escalate to nukes over ASM's (particularly as the UK had right up to the war been selling full up equipment to the Argentinians as well) either she order the task force to slug it out, or withdraw until the RN could mount a reinforced task force while the SSN's held the sea lanes.

From memory a section in I think the Vulcan 607 book had a bit from the UK UN Ambassador suggesting that the Russians were supportive of the UK efforts.

By the way Maggie threatened many things during the Falklands including stripping the Irish of the right to vote in the UK (not a small voting block) over Charlies dumb ass comments, nothing ever came off it.

 

[dropbearabroad]

"She threatened the French unless they gave the 'codes' for the deactivation of the exocets she would nuke the Argies"

I'd like to see a reference or other evidence supporting that claim. The Falklands was not going to lead either to nukes being deployed or WWIII.

 

[OnlyAlb]

Alternate possibility I proposed in the other thread: the war turns into a general South American War.

Possible scenario: Chile is convinced by Britain to enter the war due to long-term territorial conflicts with Argentina. In response, Bolivia and Peru declare war, Bolivia to regain access to the sea, Peru in support. Ecuador then sides with Chile and Britain due to their own long-standing territorial claims on Peru.

At a later point in the conflict, which is going on longer in this world due to better strategy and planning by the Argentinians, the secret support by Venezuela and Brazil in support of Argentina is discovered, leading to a diplomatic crisis between them and London.

Diplomatic wildcards: Israel, Libya, France, Soviet Union

This is an interesting scenario. It would make for a very good timeline. Other diplomatic wildcards could be Cuba, Mexico, and Panama. Also I wonder what the US would do in this scenario. If it is a bid Regional war, I'm assuming America is going to get involved. I doubt that there going to let South American countries blow each other up, especially since it's in the US backyard per say.