WI: Argentine invasion of the Falklands in 2000?

[Riain]

That's a lot of reliance on the US, who could just as easily say 'our boy's aren't going to be killed because you were too stupid to keep up carrier and amphibious capabilities.'

In 1982 the RAF could put 1 long range plane over the Falklands per day, they had to choose if this was going to be a Vulcan, a Victor SR2, a Hercules or a Nimrod. In 2000 the 1 Vulcan might be exchanged for 2-4 Tornados, but the benefits would be so minor for the effort expended as not to be worth it.

 

[pdf27]

You've got to remember that the Falklands war fundamentally changed the shape of the UK armed forces.

Without it by the end of the Cold War we'd have ended up with a Navy designed for antisubmarine warfare in the North Atlantic, and an Army designed for armoured warfare on the North German Plain. 2000 is long enough for some of the changes to come in, but not many.

- We **might** just be getting some amphibious shipping again
- The Marines are probably gone completely
- The SSNs will probably have Tomahawk, which is a far more effective strike weapon than Vulcan ever wars.
- We **might** have a replacement for the Type 42 for area air defence, depending on circumstances - we tried to many times before ending up with the Type 45.

So if we get a new area air defence destroyer, and if we get some amphibious shipping, then it's marginally possible. Without those we've just got to accept it.

 

[Incognitia]

You've got to remember that the Falklands war fundamentally changed the shape of the UK armed forces.

Without it by the end of the Cold War we'd have ended up with a Navy designed for antisubmarine warfare in the North Atlantic, and an Army designed for armoured warfare on the North German Plain. 2000 is long enough for some of the changes to come in, but not many.

- We **might** just be getting some amphibious shipping again
- The Marines are probably gone completely
- The SSNs will probably have Tomahawk, which is a far more effective strike weapon than Vulcan ever wars.
- We **might** have a replacement for the Type 42 for area air defence, depending on circumstances - we tried to many times before ending up with the Type 45.

So if we get a new area air defence destroyer, and if we get some amphibious shipping, then it's marginally possible. Without those we've just got to accept it.

Most of your points strike me as valid; however the Marines I think are likely to be able to muster too much political support to be axed entirely. At least one commando would survive as an active duty force, probably two.

 

[Armored Diplomacy]

I'm reasonably certain the US would help. The UK is a major ally and there is a very close relationship with mutual trust, and the US is not going to break that trust.

Besides, the US already offered an assault ship in 1982, and to provide airborne tankers and loan the British an assault ship would likely not get any Americans killed at all.

Besides, the US has sent it's men into harms way for far less.

 

[Nick P]

Casualties would almost certainly be higher, given that the British would find themselves fighting not poorly trained conscripts but well-trained professional soldiers.

Still, the British would have to go to Afghanistan. The US was attacked directly on it's soil, and Article 5 was invoked.

Couple of points on this one...

Would Argentine have moved to an all professional Army without the humiliating defeat of the 1982 war? OTL they only did this in 1995 and 5 years isn't enough to rebuild and create a decent army.

We might have to go to Afghanistan but that doesn't mean we have to do as much as OTL. We might just send a field hospital and some tanks/armoured vehicles from Germany for convoy protection. Besides, this Falklands War is before 9/11 so it doesn't count.
The 1991 Gulf War will have greater effects on the make up of Britains Armed Forces.

There will be less shipping available to the RN for taking the troops south. We would see the Parachute Regiment carry out their first drop into combat since WW2. Other airborne capable units might do the same.

Let's not forget that the Royal Marines had a major NATO role in defending the northern flanks in Norway. I don't see any politician having the guts to scrap a 300 year-old force with a unique ability. They took part in Bosnia, Kosovo and in 2000, Sierra Leone.

With the greater numbers of subs we'd see more Argentine ships sunk. The Exclusion Zone might be larger or even non-existent. But there would be no Veinticinco de Mayo or General Belgrano to contend with as I doubt they'd be in working order.

 

[Riain]

I'm reasonably certain the US would help. The UK is a major ally and there is a very close relationship with mutual trust, and the US is not going to break that trust.

Besides, the US already offered an assault ship in 1982, and to provide airborne tankers and loan the British an assault ship would likely not get any Americans killed at all.

Besides, the US has sent it's men into harms way for far less.

Two amphibious ships were gutted in Bluff Cove, would the US want that to be their ships?

 

[juanml82]

Couple of points on this one...

Would Argentine have moved to an all professional Army without the humiliating defeat of the 1982 war? OTL they only did this in 1995 and 5 years isn't enough to rebuild and create a decent army.

I think so. While the defeat in '82 discredited the armed forces and exposed quite a lot of failures which wouldn't show up without it, Menem decided to end conscription over the scandal of a conscript killed by his superior officers/NCOs, plus he wanted to cut down the army's manpower and it increased his public image.
I think a similar scandal might very well happen anyway and while (hopefully) Menem's presidency could be butterflied away, there is the question of how much money would the following democratic governments willing to invest in the armed forces.
So while Britain would have less available assets for a task force, Argentina might not have armed forces that different from those of 1982. At the very best, I could see upgraded fighters but probably nothing in the level of an F-16, just maybe four modern electric subs (which, with proper recon to locate ships, might be a huge danger to British warships) plus the full compliment of exocets and Super Etandards. No carrier, as it's likely to break up eventually as in OTL and funds won't be granted to replace it. Every failure in the Argentine officer corps is likely to remain, although there might a few more 'elite' units: fully professionalized and properly led.
The other difference is that any politician is going to plan such a war properly and not hope everything goes the way he wants.
Still, there is the issue of potential American or French involvement.

EDIT: regarding exocets, they would have proven their value in the Iraq-Iran war, so British ships might already have some sort of CIWS mounted by 2000

 

[pedmore1202]

Well, if Britain did discover oil on the Falklands and Argentina was making those waves in the UN and increasing rhetoric about the Falklands (which they are likely to do before attempting an invasion), Britain could decide that they need to increase/upgrade the defences.

However, I can also see there already being at least 1 squadron of Harriers or Tornados being based on the Falklands, simply because there would be room for them with a new airport built (RAF Mount Pleasant being the Falklands only international airport, I can see that being done again, even if it is later than OTL)

 

[Armored Diplomacy]

Two amphibious ships were gutted in Bluff Cove, would the US want that to be their ships?

I'm not talking about amphibious ships that directly landed troops and vehicles, I'm talking about the ones that are essentially mini-carriers, and can act as a fighter/helicopter platform from a distance. Just as the carriers did in OTL 1982, any assault ship would have kept a safe distance away from Argentine air power.

 

[Riain]

A landing army needs heavy equipment and supplies that a helicopter carrier can't deliver, the 1982 invasion went just fine without a helicopter assault ship but without LPDs would have been impossible. However my point about amphibious ships still stands even if an LPH was sufficient, a USN LPH like the USS Inchon would have to come within helicopter range of the landing beach which would be within range of the Argentine Navy Etenards and Exocets. Thus it would require considerable air cover which the ITTL RN cannot provide because the OTL 1982 didn't happen to cause the RN-FAA to bulk up.

 

[sefog]

If Britain does not feel it can retake the islands alone they will ask their allies for help. In 1982 the only reason the U.S. didn't move in directly in support of the UK was because Thatcher asked them not to as she wanted to show that the U.K. could repel an attack on its soil without American help. Same goes for why France didn't support them directly.

The American president wouldn't turn down a British request for help in this matter, and I doubt France would either.

In other words, Argentina is not holding the Falklands.

I remember reading one of the wikileak cables which mentioned the Americans being incredibly skeptical about British capabilities to acutally successfully supply the operation and retake the islands in 1982 and whilst the U.S did provide assistance (such as satellite reconaissance and material support etc.), I doubt the U.S would have entered the war militarily on the U.K's behalf unless it wanted to really damage relations with S.American countries.

 

[Umbral]

Yeah, if the 1982 war doesn't occur, Thatcher is destroyed in 1984 I imagine by Labour and Alliance.

If the Tories lose that election, doesn't that means "the longest suicide note in history" gets put into practice?

Withdrawal from the EU, unilateral nuclear disarmamaent, renationalizations etc. There was lots more wasn't there? As I remember the UK from the 70s, it was quite screwed up already.

Not to mention the signal effect of Labor actually winning by lurching to the left.

 

[Will Lucky]

If the Tories lose that election, doesn't that means "the longest suicide note in history" gets put into practice?

Withdrawal from the EU, unilateral nuclear disarmamaent, renationalizations etc. There was lots more wasn't there? As I remember the UK from the 70s, it was quite screwed up already.

Not to mention the signal effect of Labor actually winning by lurching to the left.

Maybe, depends on if Labour can get a majority. If Alliance can make enough gains to become kingmaker, well who knows.

 

[caledfwlch]

I always thought one of the ways the Argies shot themselves in the foot in 1982 was the propoganda photo's.

A particular sight was not one the British Public were used too, and I think a PM whoever he/she is, is going to have a hell of a time not giving in to the baying of blood from the public. Dirty Foreigners manhandling Her Majesty's Marines?

I suspect this sort of photo shocked the public and made them back a military adventure far more than the actual fact of British Citizens being invaded.

As others have pointed out, I don't believe this scenario is "playable". A 2nd invasion in 2000 yes, but 1982 not taking place as in OTL just changes far too many things.

 

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

If the Tories lose that election, doesn't that means "the longest suicide note in history" gets put into practice?

Withdrawal from the EU, unilateral nuclear disarmamaent, renationalizations etc. There was lots more wasn't there? As I remember the UK from the 70s, it was quite screwed up already.

Not to mention the signal effect of Labor actually winning by lurching to the left.

I wonder if the note may backfire; after trying it for a few years, and then some crisis jolts them into buying brand new systems, just in time for the war. I hasten to add, I put this at 10% or less likely.

 

[Armored Diplomacy]

I always thought one of the ways the Argies shot themselves in the foot in 1982 was the propoganda photo's.

A particular sight was not one the British Public were used too, and I think a PM whoever he/she is, is going to have a hell of a time not giving in to the baying of blood from the public. Dirty Foreigners manhandling Her Majesty's Marines?

I suspect this sort of photo shocked the public and made them back a military adventure far more than the actual fact of British Citizens being invaded.

Ironially, the Argentinians took these photos intending to calm the British public down by demonstrating that there were no British casualties (the Argentine Marines were ordered to take the island without killing any British soldiers).

 

[rule_them_all]

Why would Tony Blair be PM in 2000, if the 1982 conflict is averted? Surely there'd be enough political butterflies in the UK from the lack of a Falklands War to preclude this. You may even butterfly 9/11, too.

There is indeed a large chance that without the popularity boost provided by the Falklands War, Margaret Thatcer would have lost reelection. I only wonder to who, because Michael Foot was pretty much unelectable.
If Foot and his party wins, oh my... It would be a very different Britain indeed, though I wonder how much time it would've lasted. With two miserable prime-ministers ruining the reputations of their respective parties, I wonder if there would be a Lib-Dem majority government by 1986 or so.

 

[rule_them_all]

Or the SDP and Labour split the vote, and Thatcher scrapes by nonetheless.

Do you think she would have lasted though? With the state she was in by 1982 I highly doubt she could have survived the Miner's Strike.

 

[SunilTanna]

Do you think she would have lasted though? With the state she was in by 1982 I highly doubt she could have survived the Miner's Strike.

Miners strike was on 84 after she won the 83 election.

The mythology is that she provoked it at a time of her choosing.

Cabinet papers however show that Thatcher wanted to avoid a miners strike, because she thought it could bring her government down a la Heath. No doubt, she did prepare for a strike, but in retrospect it is clear she thought she might lose.

Meanwhile the NUM were supremely confident they would win, and that they would bring the government down. Maybe that's why they went off half cocked, not doing a ballot (which the strikers would probably have won if done at the outset), and striking at the worst time of year. A ballot win would have got all the miners out, and much more public and trade union sympathy.

 

[iainbhx]

At the risk of being controversial the Alliance were already on the slide before the Falklands, they probably peaked in late 1981. The 1983 election was not lost because of the Falklands, it was lost because if the worst split in the Opposition for over half a century.

It might have to be a 1984 election, although I think Autumn 83 would have been possible and I would suggest a narrow Conservative victory.