What would happen if the anglos were faced with defeat in the falklans

Not really. As points out, they were gambling. They didn't even bother to extend the runway at Port Stanley so fighter jets could land there (which could have really caused the British problems). They ended up between two stools, they did enough to provoke retaliation, but not enough to have a chance of defending their gains. There was no real strategic planning.

One of the nice things about a parliamentary system (vs the present situation with Trump) is a PM who ordered something crazy would be deposed by her cabinet on the spot.

Then you're an idiot. The UK would have become a complete international pariah overnight. She would have been thrown out of office the next morning and almost certainly ended up standing trial for war crimes. This is assuming such an order would have even been followed, which it wouldn't have been, even if it had been necessary to win the war.

It's checkmate because it means the Argentina fleet is confined to port while the British roam freely. If they try sending a troop ship out its getting sunk. They had no anti submarine capability. The Belgrano says 'we've got a sub and we will happily sink whatever you've got and drown everyone aboard. Your move gaucho'. Basically it means the British brought a gun to a knife fight.

Why?

Did they not think the British would come to take them back?

I don’t know the situation in detail, but it seems like it wouldn’t have been that hard for the Argentinians to have made retaking the islands politically if not militarily impossible if they’d fully committed to it.

so what you are telling me that the uk are the biggest cucks ever they have nuclear capabilities and will only use them when london is in ashes?
i mean i dont doubth that she would be deposed , but the uk was being attacked

The Argentinians has weeks in which to fly in troops unopposed, no? And they probably still could have kept up air superiority around the islands if they’d wanted to. The British could have been kept off-shore with the threat of anti-ship missiles; they wouldn’t be able to seriously interrupt air transport between the islands and the mainland.

would the argies not be able to enjoy air superiority i mean they wer much closer the the uk this would be a game changer
i just dont get what heir high command was thinking

This is true of all post-WW2 nuclear arsenals/powers.

Why didn’t the US use nukes in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc? Because it’s just not an option.

>Did they not think the British would come to take them back?
They gambled on no. They hoped for a quick flash victory and Britain not having the resolve to take action.
They could have done those things but didn't. Not extending the runway was the biggest blunder. It meant argentine planes were flying 250 miles from the mainland before engaging the British, completely negating their home advantage over carrier based planes.
A little bit of strategic thought would have made it almost impossible for the British. But that's the story of most sides who lost a war.

but thsoe were all ofensive wars
US attacked both vietnam and afghanistan and iraq they would hev no possible reason to use nukes
and in korea the conflict almost went nuclear the concept of mad wasnt really around back then and most of US high commanded defended for tactical nuclear use

but thsoe were all ofensive wars
US attacked both vietnam and afghanistan and iraq they would hev no possible reason to use nukes
and in korea the conflict almost went nuclear the concept of mad wasnt really around back then and most of US high command defended for tactical nuclear use

Before it was just hyperbole, but if you can't see the fucking WORLDS of middle ground between "only use nuclear weapons when London is a smouldering heap of ashes" and "use nuclear weapons in a territorial conflict over several islands with a total population in the low thousands" then you actually are an idiot.

I don't think you understand how much of a last resort nuclear weapons are, even though you must be aware of the treaties that most nuclear powers are party to that state, yeah, we'll basically only use these if somebody else does it first or we're faced with an existential threat to the nation itself. The ramifications of using them against Argentina would have FAR exceeded the ramifications of simply losing the fucking Falklands (even factoring in the subsequent loss of credibility) - even though, as mentioned, there was never actually any danger of that.

Argies lost the war because their retarded junta had stationed most of its forces on chilean border in case of tensions with their neighbour. They sent untrained soldiers with shit equipment to capture the falklands, needless to say it was easy to beat these forces

Underage

you guys do realise the MoD addmited there were nuclear weapons present in the falkland conflict
so that means the nuclear option was considered you tards

The politicians in the US recognized that nukes were absolutely not an option, even up to the point of losing Korea and the fallout that would have had in the rest of Asia and beyond.

the danger of Chile invading Tierra del Fuego was real though, both countries almost went to war in 1978

There were likely nuclear weapons on subs deployed, but they never would have been used. They were there for ww3 with the soviets only.

The issue there is that the nuclear option is always available provided you have them except nukes primary purpose is a deterrent. If you use one you not only remove your deterrent but you escalate the conflict to such a degree it's untenable. At no point since WW2 have nukes been considered past "Well we have them, you know, just in case" because it's just not worth it. The US discussed this at length during both times it was brought up as an option in Korea and Vietnam

> Did they not think the British would come to take them back?
They were counting on US to do the same as in the Suez Crisis, since they thought that they were a valuable ally to the americans.

Being present doesn't mean they were considered.

Ahahahah.

Although the US position of the Falklands then and since has been pretty shameful.

>i just dont get what heir high command was thinking
they had no central command
the army, navy and air force fought their own war with little coordination

It’s actually weird how countries were so reluctant to come out as openly backing the UK. Today Argentina’s position seems like a bad joke from the 60s, but at the time charges of ‘colonialism’ seemed to carry a lot more weight (and support for democratic self determination a lot less).

I think everyone was sitting on the fence. If UK had lost they could all say 'ah yes, of course old colonial hangovers can't last' and when UK won they could say 'ah yes, democratic self determination is sacred don't you know'

>wah wah wah

Yeah it is pretty strange. I think today if something like that were to happen then there would be a far greater response, as there is less of the "Anti-colonialism" mindset, atleast outside of the Africa and parts of Asia.

as an anglo this makes me hard

>They sent untrained soldiers with shit equipment to capture the falklands
nop, they sent several different groups special forces to capture the island - these left almost immediately then tge shitty conscripts were there, only when invasion was imminent.

I’m sure it’s been war-gamed many times since. Anyone know the results?

You die

There were loads of things the Argentines could have done better.
Servicing the Exocet missiles properly so they actually exploded when they hit.
Extending the runway at Port Stanley would have given them direct fighter cover over the islands, and might have prevented the British from landing
They scored a bunch of hits on UK ships with low level bombing runs, but didn't get any kills because they failed to realize the bombs they were using needed to be dropped from higher altitude for the fuses to arm.
Basically the entire campaign was a shitshow from start to finish, operationally to strategically. If you don't prepare properly in a war, get ready for a fist fucking from someone who did.

they lost air superiority.

the british lost some escorts -ciws was not yet really a thing but sea skimming missiles were- but in taking those out the argentinians lost about half of their airforce.

once the UK was committed to retaking the islands the argie situation became futile

>but didn't get any kills because they failed to realize the bombs they were using needed to be dropped from higher altitude for the fuses to arm.

if they had flown higher they would have been much better targets for the british ships AAW systems, given that those systems already killed quite a lot of the argentinian airforce the low level stuff makes sense

Don't need planes when you got submarines.

Where the argentines retarded?

>air suepriority
The air strip at Port Stanley was too short of fighters, so the Argies had to sortie from the mainland, which severelly lmited their combat capability.