What are the concequences of Argentina winning the Falklands War?

[GetDownShep]

re: Sparky42 post 10
Whether the UK could crew a rejuvinated fleet in a year is debateable, but the current Tory government can always seem to find more than enough money on the mythical moneytree to finance it’s own projects, COVID contracts, so I don’t see why the Tory government of 82 couldn’t have re armed to save their own government.

 

[Strategos' Risk]

Higher personal taxation and a return to a more interventionist industrial policy.
nationalise banks and immediately withdraw from the then-European Economic Community.
There manifesto also pledged that a Labour government would abolish the House of Lords,

A reversal of Thatcherism, oh nooooo

 

[GetDownShep]

re: napev 7 post 20
You are probably correct, in the UK the levels of Tory propaganda generated by the mass media would have been used to wipe the publics memory of the events the year before whilst making it look like Labour/Michael Foot was responsible for all the ills.

 

[sparky42]

re: Sparky42 post 10
Whether the UK could crew a rejuvinated fleet in a year is debateable, but the current Tory government can always seem to find more than enough money on the mythical moneytree to finance it’s own projects, COVID contracts, so I don’t see why the Tory government of 82 couldn’t have re armed to save their own government.

Because it’s not just a question of money?

 

[juanml82]

Just wondering if anyone has thought about the following theory - that Argentina's mistake was not invading the islands, but invading it the wrong way?

What I mean by this is that instead of their stupid gung-ho attitude in sending a force to Stanley (I believe the locals refer to it that way, rather than as 'Port Stanley') Argentina should instead have launched their invasion on West Falkland. In conditions of total secrecy, they should have selected a landing point as close to Argentina as possible, and sent in engineers to build a harbour. Once this had been done, they would then send in an army - not of soldiers, but contractors and builders, to build a military and civilian base. Much of this work would be done under cover of darkness. With satellite photography not being what it is today, there would be little chance of the UK finding out. Once this had been done (after several months, at the end of which a sizeable town had been built) they would then announce to the world that they had taken possession of West Falkland.

What would the UK have done in such a scenario? Would they have still sent a Task Force? Probably not, in my view. The most likely scenario would be years of arguing, with there perhaps eventually being a deal in which Argentina were given West Falkland permanently on condition that they gave up their claim to East Falkland.

Thoughts?

Satellites weren't what they are today (they used film cameras and dropped the camera rolls onto the surface), but that would have been discovered, if anything, but some of the locals that happens to wander in a supposedly uninhabited part of the island that's suddenly crawling with soldiers. Maybe an airstrip long enough for fighter jets could have been quickly improvised in a previously surveyed site... but at that point, you may as well invade East Falkland and build the airstrip there, or prolong the existing one.
It may have worked before satellite recon at all, and best if done before the islanders got access to short wave radios, but at that point in time, the balance of powers tilts too heavily for the British.

On topic:
Thatcher falls, this may have effects on the rise of neoliberalism and globalization or it may just delay it.

If the UK contests the invasion and Argentina still win (let's roll with it as per OP), the Argentine armed forces would still have been taken significant looses (specially in the air) and wouldn't be able to immediately invade Chile. The Latin American debt crisis still hits in August, further complicating additional wars. If Argentina wins because the British don't show up, a follow up invasion of Chile in summer may be planned, but with the economy going to hell anyway, it's unlikely to happen.

The Argentine survives a bit longer, but I think it would fall before the middle of the decade anyway. There are no trials for the crimes of the dictatorship, and the military may remain a political actor in the country, not unlike Brazil. But with the fall of the USSR and American hegemony in the 1990s, Uncle Sam turned to preferring friendly/cowed democracies than military dictatorships in the region. If/when a significant economic or political crisis happens (as the OTL 2001 crisis), people may still demand a military intervention, but if the military obliges, I don't see them sticking around. They'd remove the president and call for new elections.

OTOH, depending on how the war (or if there is a war) develops, Colonel Seineldin may become an important political figure in Argentina. His anti-American views wouldn't match the era of the USA as the only hyperpower, so if he ends up becoming president of the country (even or specially so if he gets elected to the position), that's going to sour US-Argentina relationships. On top, a victorious armed forces are going to continue developing nuclear weapons. Since satellite recon wasn't indeed what it is today, it's possible that the CIA misses the project entirely (they were taken by surprise when Alfonsin made public that Argentina had been enriching uranium for years) and the program is announced when an Argentine nuclear weapon is tested. That is not going to make the Americans happy, to say the least.

So we end up with an Argentina that's still in economic trouble, but is far more arrogant, may not be willing to join the Washington consensus, probably nuclear armed and generally acts like a stone in the US' shoe. At the time when the USA didn't have any sort of rival Argentina could lean towards to balance the scales.

 

[Politibrit]

Could Thatcher lose in a 1997 style landslide?

I think Thatcher is most likely gone in this scenario. Her handling of the economy had already left her historically unpopular to this point, so the deaths of most likely hundreds of service men and women and national humiliation would most likely make things untenable. If she goes, the Tories would probably replace her with someone a bit more 'wet' like William Whitelaw, and they wouldn't pursue what we know as 'Thatcherism' quite so vigorously.

It's difficult to be certain how people would feel about losing the Falklands two years after the fact. It might be like Iraq where people are largely willing to look past it and give the government another chance, or it might be like Black Wednesday, which basically guaranteed they would be kicked out in 1997.

As for the next election, Labour was such a blazing wreck at this point that a majority is highly unlikely, let alone a landslide. If the Tories are still seen as discredited even after kicking out Thatcher, then they are probably most vulnerable to the SDP/Liberal Alliance, which was actually leading in the polls just prior to the invasion. As a third party, they would have an absolute mountain to climb though, and you'd still a lot to go wrong for the Tories in the rest of the term for Alliance to even be the largest grouping in a hung parliament. Still, it's a fun idea, and this is probably the most plausible way to achieve it.

The best chance Labour would have would be as a a minority government with support from the Liberals (but not the SDP). But even that that would probably come about through the whackiness of FPTP, that could have seen them come third in votes but first in seats. I'd say the most likely outcome is probably a hung parliament where the Tories are the largest party, but where Alliance beats Labour in the popular vote, wins 50 seats or so, and comes to some kind of arrangement to prop up a more moderate Tory PM.

 

[GetDownShep]

re: Sparky 42
The UK as a declining seafaring nation could probably have found the manpower either ex RN or MN to crew conversions and rebuilds, Bulwark n Blake, go cap in hand to others, Autralia n NZ have T12 derivatives, Iranian Kharg OL class ouler is sat impounded on Tyne any others?, build T22s T42s already under construction, SHars, Seakings n Lynxes and any other likely ordnance on a 3shift 7day per week
- overtime be damned the cost is irrelevant.

 

[sparky42]

re: Sparky 42
The UK as a declining seafaring nation could probably have found the manpower either ex RN or MN to crew conversions and rebuilds, Bulwark n Blake, go cap in hand to others, Autralia n NZ have T12 derivatives, Iranian Kharg OL class ouler is sat impounded on Tyne any others?, build T22s T42s already under construction, SHars, Seakings n Lynxes and any other likely ordnance on a 3shift 7day per week
- overtime be damned the cost is irrelevant.

Australia and NZ were already using their ships to cover gaps from the RN pulling in escorts for the first go around, how much spare capacity and political will would they have to loan ships to the UK for a second (and what use would they be)? Even if there are thousands of trained ex personnel willing to sign on again, how current are they, how fit are they? How long would it take to get them trained into combat units capable of Task Force combat? If the UK has suffered such a defeat, will you see more pressure from the USSR requiring more hulls being kept in Home/NATO waters, were any of the troopships and landing craft lost with those impacts....

I stand by my point that if (and of course it's a huge if) the Argentina's were able to inflict such losses in the Task Force as to make it impossible for the UK to launch an invasion then regenerating additional forces to both replace what has been lost and increase capacities to prevent the risk of a second loss is not going to happen in just a year, not in a "Peace Time" environment, not too mention of course whether or not the Thatcher Government could survive such an event.

 

[BiasHangover]

Hypothetically, if a Labour or disinterested UK government allowed Argentina to do this, what would happen to the British/Falklands population?
Would they get deported? Would they be allowed to stay, with/out rights? Would Britain let them in like Rhodesians?

 

[juanml82]

Hypothetically, if a Labour or disinterested UK government allowed Argentina to do this, what would happen to the British/Falklands population?
Would they get deported? Would they be allowed to stay, with/out rights? Would Britain let them in like Rhodesians?

Probably left, with equal rights to all Argentines (as, according to Argentine law, all born in the islands are Argentine nationals), but they'd be quickly overwhelmed by thousands of Argentines who would travel there to reshape the islands demographics. Just 10,000 new arrivals would outnumber the local population by 5 to 1. And out of a population 28 million people overwhelmed with patriotic fervor, the dictatorship would have to contain the amount of people who would be willing to move to the islands in the immediate aftermath rather than need to make an effort to make people move (to remain living there after a few years it's another question, of course)

 

[BiasHangover]

Probably left, with equal rights to all Argentines (as, according to Argentine law, all born in the islands are Argentine nationals), but they'd be quickly overwhelmed by thousands of Argentines who would travel there to reshape the islands demographics. Just 10,000 new arrivals would outnumber the local population by 5 to 1. And out of a population 28 million people overwhelmed with patriotic fervor, the dictatorship would have to contain the amount of people who would be willing to move to the islands in the immediate aftermath rather than need to make an effort to make people move (to remain living there after a few years it's another question, of course)

So Argentina would settler colonise the Falklands.

 

[Falecius]

Satellites weren't what they are today (they used film cameras and dropped the camera rolls onto the surface), but that would have been discovered, if anything, but some of the locals that happens to wander in a supposedly uninhabited part of the island that's suddenly crawling with soldiers. Maybe an airstrip long enough for fighter jets could have been quickly improvised in a previously surveyed site... but at that point, you may as well invade East Falkland and build the airstrip there, or prolong the existing one.
It may have worked before satellite recon at all, and best if done before the islanders got access to short wave radios, but at that point in time, the balance of powers tilts too heavily for the British.

On topic:
Thatcher falls, this may have effects on the rise of neoliberalism and globalization or it may just delay it.

If the UK contests the invasion and Argentina still win (let's roll with it as per OP), the Argentine armed forces would still have been taken significant looses (specially in the air) and wouldn't be able to immediately invade Chile. The Latin American debt crisis still hits in August, further complicating additional wars. If Argentina wins because the British don't show up, a follow up invasion of Chile in summer may be planned, but with the economy going to hell anyway, it's unlikely to happen.

The Argentine survives a bit longer, but I think it would fall before the middle of the decade anyway. There are no trials for the crimes of the dictatorship, and the military may remain a political actor in the country, not unlike Brazil. But with the fall of the USSR and American hegemony in the 1990s, Uncle Sam turned to preferring friendly/cowed democracies than military dictatorships in the region. If/when a significant economic or political crisis happens (as the OTL 2001 crisis), people may still demand a military intervention, but if the military obliges, I don't see them sticking around. They'd remove the president and call for new elections.

OTOH, depending on how the war (or if there is a war) develops, Colonel Seineldin may become an important political figure in Argentina. His anti-American views wouldn't match the era of the USA as the only hyperpower, so if he ends up becoming president of the country (even or specially so if he gets elected to the position), that's going to sour US-Argentina relationships. On top, a victorious armed forces are going to continue developing nuclear weapons. Since satellite recon wasn't indeed what it is today, it's possible that the CIA misses the project entirely (they were taken by surprise when Alfonsin made public that Argentina had been enriching uranium for years) and the program is announced when an Argentine nuclear weapon is tested. That is not going to make the Americans happy, to say the least.

So we end up with an Argentina that's still in economic trouble, but is far more arrogant, may not be willing to join the Washington consensus, probably nuclear armed and generally acts like a stone in the US' shoe. At the time when the USA didn't have any sort of rival Argentina could lean towards to balance the scales.

The nuclear Argentina train of consequence is interesting. I'd expect Brazil to pursue nukes itself in response - at which point non-proliferation is significantly more dead, and earlier, than IOTL: Pakistan would be almost guaranteed to develop nukes in the historical timeframe if not a little bit earlier, most likely North Korea too - but with two non Treaty nuclear powers already officially around, would Ukraine agree to cede its Soviet legacy arsenal ? They'd might go, "If Argentina can have nukes, why can't we?" - Would South Africa, too, accept to disarm in this context (sounds more likely). Would/could Chile pursue nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis an aggressive, militaristic, nuclear-armed Argentina in this scenario? Well, that'd make a politically lot livelier South America in the last forty years, but not in a good way.
Perhaps, instead, this is offset by a Britain that renounces her nuclear arsenal: that would set a hell of example for South Africa, post-Soviet republics and, well, perhaps even North Korea.
(I am assuming a OTL-like Soviet collapse, of course, which is not guaranteed, just for simplicity).

 

[jsb]

Just wondering if anyone has thought about the following theory - that Argentina's mistake was not invading the islands, but invading it the wrong way?

What I mean by this is that instead of their stupid gung-ho attitude in sending a force to Stanley (I believe the locals refer to it that way, rather than as 'Port Stanley') Argentina should instead have launched their invasion on West Falkland. In conditions of total secrecy, they should have selected a landing point as close to Argentina as possible, and sent in engineers to build a harbour. Once this had been done, they would then send in an army - not of soldiers, but contractors and builders, to build a military and civilian base. Much of this work would be done under cover of darkness. With satellite photography not being what it is today, there would be little chance of the UK finding out. Once this had been done (after several months, at the end of which a sizeable town had been built) they would then announce to the world that they had taken possession of West Falkland.

What would the UK have done in such a scenario? Would they have still sent a Task Force? Probably not, in my view. The most likely scenario would be years of arguing, with there perhaps eventually being a deal in which Argentina were given West Falkland permanently on condition that they gave up their claim to East Falkland.

Thoughts?

Would some local farmer or fishing boat or civilian aircraft not be almost certain to find the base before it got too large to be actually usefull?

And the issue is I dont think it really makes any difference, UK can simply say no and a slow invasion and argument is far worse as it gives time for a RN and reinforcements to arrive before UK says no.....

UK says nothing definitive apart from its "UK territory" and simply delays for a fortnight sails its fleet south and then when they arrive 6807 nautical miles in 14 days @20Kn so easy to do and at that point UK lands it forces and starts to build up a massive force on West Falkland unopposed including RAF Harrier & even Phantom bases? At some point UK starts sending forces onto east Falkland and making clear it not going to play and that it now has multiple SSNs in the area and asks Argentina if they want to fight a much worse situation that OTL war?

 

[Quintuplicate]

1. It's "Labour" , a proper noun.
2. This claim of yours is grossly overblown.

For anyone curious about actual Labour policies in 1983 the manifesto is here.

Is there an equivalent site for other parties?

 

[YYJ]

Just wondering if anyone has thought about the following theory - that Argentina's mistake was not invading the islands, but invading it the wrong way?

What I mean by this is that instead of their stupid gung-ho attitude in sending a force to Stanley (I believe the locals refer to it that way, rather than as 'Port Stanley') Argentina should instead have launched their invasion on West Falkland. In conditions of total secrecy, they should have selected a landing point as close to Argentina as possible, and sent in engineers to build a harbour. Once this had been done, they would then send in an army - not of soldiers, but contractors and builders, to build a military and civilian base. Much of this work would be done under cover of darkness. With satellite photography not being what it is today, there would be little chance of the UK finding out. Once this had been done (after several months, at the end of which a sizeable town had been built) they would then announce to the world that they had taken possession of West Falkland.

What would the UK have done in such a scenario? Would they have still sent a Task Force? Probably not, in my view. The most likely scenario would be years of arguing, with there perhaps eventually being a deal in which Argentina were given West Falkland permanently on condition that they gave up their claim to East Falkland.

Thoughts?

I am not sure what the civilian population of the Falklands was in 1982. The population currently is 3662. I imagine that most of that population would be on East Falkland, around Stanley. Wikipedia says the population of Stanley was 2460 in 2016, which leaves somewhere around 1200 people living elsewhere on the archipelago. I expect not a lot of those live on West Falkland. Nevertheless, I count 17 named population centres on West Falkland and the small islands to the west. These may each be little more than a house and barn, surrounded by sheep, but that still puts enough eyes on the ground to spot the invasion force you describe.

The economy of the Falklands at the time as mostly based on sheep farming, with fishing only growing after the war. But there would have been some fishing. And many of the settlements on West Falkland and the small islands to the west are accessible only by boat, ergo, there must be boats travelling through the waters where you propose the secret invasion. There need be only one reported contact to bring British authorities to check out the situation, and the jig is up for the secret invasion.

I'm sure Argentine submarines could land commandos, and beaches could be taken on West Falkland, especially in foul weather and at night, but it would not stay secret. If the commandos chloroform all the farmers in the 17+ settlements, people will still come looking when Joe misses his dental appointment etc.

Your scenario did not specify when the shooting starts.

There is a bit of a fork here: If Argentina starts shooting right away, they will need to send their navy to perform a blockade on the islands. If they do not start shooting, and, as your scenario suggests, they consider this to be an escalated diplomatic incident and insist on staying (because the Islands are really theirs) focussed on building their bridgehead, then they will need to do an Operation Overlord scale sealift with Mulberry Harbours etc. but without the resources, and with alerted defences. Most of the Argentine forces OTL were landed at the port of Stanley, because they captured it at the start of the war.

If Argentina does start shooting right away, Britain will declare an exclusion zone and sink the Argentine Navy with its nuclear attack submarines.

If Argentina does not start shooting right away, because Argentina has left the airport in British hands, I imagine the RAF would send a squadron of F-4s with ferry tanks and tanker support pronto, via what route I'm not sure. Ascension, or South Africa, or maybe via friendly Chile. The RAF would use the existing Stanley airport as a base, and could fly in assets faster than they could arrive by ship. I would expect some airliners full of special forces could be flown in quickly, to make a more capable garrison. A task force would be assembled, but they would be more of a relief force for the garrison rather than an assault force.

So to answer you question, I think the war would play out as historical, but Argentina would start from a much less favourable position, and The UK from a much better one.

 

[Gukpard]

So, one more thing I can add is that I find the idea that the Argentinian junta would remain for longer just to be a meme. After winning the war Galtieri would immediately set up a puppet party and call immediate elections to try to legitimise his rule.

Today Galtierism would be a right wing alternative to pink wave peronism.

 

[Catsmate]

Is there an equivalent site for other parties?

Here is the Conservative party manifesto, something that took me literally seconds to find via Google.

 

[DougM]

I never have understood why the US was not more supportive of GB. I was young at the time but knew a lot of adults that thought the US ahould have provided more assistance. They didnt want US boots on the ground but a Carrier Battle Group would have been acceptable to a lot of Americans. And i do wonder if GB takes a lot more lost ships if the US ultimately does not step up with a battle group to intercept the Argentine Aircraft. Just have Hawkeye and Tomcats pretty much ends Argentinas abilities.

 

[M79]

*Thatcher government will fall

*Guatemala takes Belize, Venezuela eyes Trinidad and Tobago, and smaller Commonwealth countries bolster ties to the US

*Argentina junta survives and pursues nuclear weapons as USSR tries to exploit perceived rift between UK and US

*Argentina continues pursuit of nuclear power, possibly with Israeli and West German assistance. Their enrichment facility at Pilcaniyeu has the same troubles it did in OTL and only yields a small amount of 20% enriched material until the late 1980s when higher yields become available.

*Argentina hires several Russian physicists and other military experts to further develop its capabilities, building nuclear power facilities and selling excess energy to Chile and Brazil. By 2000 it produces over a sixth of all power generated in Latin America at 320 terrawatt-hours, by 2020 this is closer to a quarter at 500 terrawatt-hours at over 75% nuclear power.

*Argentina reignites the Beagle Islands in 1984 and holds fast to their position despite protests from the United States and moreso from Chile. Operation Soberiana is revived and polished further.

*The actual invasion of Chile occurs shortly before the American liberation of Kuwait, with Argentina rapidly taking over most of Chile under the premise of defeating Communism rumored to be linked to Patricio Alywon's Concertacion coalition. Given the expenses and looming fall of Communism, and especially the discovery of a Chilean plan to poison the water supply of Buenos Aires as reported by a Chilean intelligence officer, Washington is not able to generate enough support for a move to free Chile.
This is reinforced with selectively permitted television interviews supportive of Argentinian involvement. A sham referendum leads to annexation of Chile to Argentina in 1992, interestingly the local economy recovers in years to come.

*Paraguay is 'secured' by Argentina after the coup against Alfredo Stroessner leaves Andres Rodriguez in charge. His military rule is threatened in June 1992 when the restored Congress mandates constitutional changes with only one five-year term for any President on June 20. Worried about 'radical elements' and 'potential Communist takeover', Argentina invades in the pre-dawn hours of July 21, 1992 and seizes effective control of the country in less than six hours. At two different points war nearly erupts between Argentina and Brazil but the de facto situation on the ground means Brazil can not risk war without US support, and economic troubles with little obvious reward mean Buenos Aires once again is able to get away with its invasion. They are firmly warned not to try any other 'liberation campaigns' and promise not to do so, though the former nation of Paraguay becomes a pair of Argentinian provinces by year's end.

*Upon detonation of Argentina's first crude nuclear device in 2002, it announces further division from US policies, encouraging tacit US support of Brazil's nuclear program with their first detonation of a weapon in 2004. They consider invasion and takeover of Uruguay but do not do so for fear of a blockade. Their launch of a satellite the same year, however, brings them more international attention as the junta continues though with some parliamentary reforms in place to allow an outlet for the general populace. Uruguay is left largely alone though in the shadow of a much stronger Brazil and openly expansionist Argentina with eyes on Sucre, La Paz, Montevideo, and other territory.

 

[juanml82]

So Argentina would settler colonise the Falklands.

Yes. Not through government intervention (although the government would intervene) but due popular initiative. As an example: I was born right after the war ended. My mother always said she wanted to fly to the islands to make me be born there had we won (in time) or the British wouldn't have contested the invasion. Staying there to live in another matter. But my father is an architect. With lots of people flying in as well, he'd have plenty of job there. For all I know, if Thatcher hadn't dispatched the task force, I would have been raised there along with plenty of other settlers.

One of the reasons the Falklands have strict migration requirements is because they know we'd overwhelm them with numbers given the opportunity. Even a small vocal minority of Argentines is more than enough for that.

*Thatcher government will fall

*Guatemala takes Belize, Venezuela eyes Trinidad and Tobago, and smaller Commonwealth countries bolster ties to the US

*Argentina junta survives and pursues nuclear weapons as USSR tries to exploit perceived rift between UK and US

*Argentina continues pursuit of nuclear power, possibly with Israeli and West German assistance. Their enrichment facility at Pilcaniyeu has the same troubles it did in OTL and only yields a small amount of 20% enriched material until the late 1980s when higher yields become available.

*Argentina hires several Russian physicists and other military experts to further develop its capabilities, building nuclear power facilities and selling excess energy to Chile and Brazil. By 2000 it produces over a sixth of all power generated in Latin America at 320 terrawatt-hours, by 2020 this is closer to a quarter at 500 terrawatt-hours at over 75% nuclear power.

*Argentina reignites the Beagle Islands in 1984 and holds fast to their position despite protests from the United States and moreso from Chile. Operation Soberiana is revived and polished further.

*The actual invasion of Chile occurs shortly before the American liberation of Kuwait, with Argentina rapidly taking over most of Chile under the premise of defeating Communism rumored to be linked to Patricio Alywon's Concertacion coalition. Given the expenses and looming fall of Communism, and especially the discovery of a Chilean plan to poison the water supply of Buenos Aires as reported by a Chilean intelligence officer, Washington is not able to generate enough support for a move to free Chile.
This is reinforced with selectively permitted television interviews supportive of Argentinian involvement. A sham referendum leads to annexation of Chile to Argentina in 1992, interestingly the local economy recovers in years to come.

*Paraguay is 'secured' by Argentina after the coup against Alfredo Stroessner leaves Andres Rodriguez in charge. His military rule is threatened in June 1992 when the restored Congress mandates constitutional changes with only one five-year term for any President on June 20. Worried about 'radical elements' and 'potential Communist takeover', Argentina invades in the pre-dawn hours of July 21, 1992 and seizes effective control of the country in less than six hours. At two different points war nearly erupts between Argentina and Brazil but the de facto situation on the ground means Brazil can not risk war without US support, and economic troubles with little obvious reward mean Buenos Aires once again is able to get away with its invasion. They are firmly warned not to try any other 'liberation campaigns' and promise not to do so, though the former nation of Paraguay becomes a pair of Argentinian provinces by year's end.

*Upon detonation of Argentina's first crude nuclear device in 2002, it announces further division from US policies, encouraging tacit US support of Brazil's nuclear program with their first detonation of a weapon in 2004. They consider invasion and takeover of Uruguay but do not do so for fear of a blockade. Their launch of a satellite the same year, however, brings them more international attention as the junta continues though with some parliamentary reforms in place to allow an outlet for the general populace. Uruguay is left largely alone though in the shadow of a much stronger Brazil and openly expansionist Argentina with eyes on Sucre, La Paz, Montevideo, and other territory.

Getting access to the Pacific is something the Argentine Navy would want. There is the possibility that the Reagan administration sees this and arms Chile to the teeth to prevent it, though. But annexing and keep it annexed Chile is too much of an effort. The same with Paraguay. While there are common interests due hydroelectric power generation in the Parana and Paraguay rivers, is it worth the trouble? The threat of military intervention, or a quick raid, can settle bilateral issues by force. But if it's annexed, you need to keep the (former) country occupied.
Uruguay means war with Brazil. An Argentine army settled in Uruguay can threaten southern Brazil, where the majority of the Brazilian population and industry lies. Conversely, a Brazilian counterattack that ends with Brazil in control, or fully allied, with Uruguay, has the Brazilian Navy based 30 miles away from Buenos Aires, well within the range of short range rocket artillery.