It was a little more complicated than that. The Argentines had effectively been promised the islands by the FCO, who had wanted to get rid of the Falklands for years, so there was no political will from them. There was initially no support from Nott, who had just about persuaded Thatcher that there was little that could be done when Sir Henry Leach brought her on side and got her to give the ok. Technically, it was the wrong decision - the task force was not up to the job on paper, with no top radar cover, and inoperable radar close to land. But the Navy has a tradition of ignoring the rules and going for it - in this case it paid off. To give her her due, Thatcher took her political decision and stuck to it. Our lack of early warning radar cost a lot of lives and equipment.
But what I meant about jumping the gun was that the Argentines had some new frigates and subs on order, which would have been delivered in a year or so. They were waiting for their next delivery of Exocets, and they had very few in stock. Britain was in the process of getting rid of its amphibious and carrier capability. A year's wait would have meant that the Argentines were far better equipped, while we would not have been able to raise a Task Force...
I dont recollect much of that. While its true the Falkland islanders were just a protectorate, I dont think the FCO who after all only cary out the Government's wishes ever said they wanted to give up the Islands. I recollect it was more a 'if the islanders want to become part of Argentina, we'll have discussions' but of course, the islanders never wanted this.
What actually signalled Galtieri's decision to invade the islands, apart from diverting unrest in Argentina, was John Nott, the defence secretary signalling the endurance would be withdrawn from the south atlantic. This gave Galtieri the impression the british Government were not bothered about the Island.
Thatcher was most displeased when South Georgia was invaded followed by the Falklands. Thatcher most definitely wanted a task force sent down to the SA to eject the Argentines but it was nott, the same self serving "xxxxx" who got a knighthood out of the whole mess who reckoned the navy couldnt pull it off. In fact, if the invasion had of been much later, notts decimation of the navy would have made it impossible for the navy to do the job at all.
While the lack of AWACS did put the fleet at a disadvantage lets not forget that Sheffield sadly blinded herself by being in direct contact with the MOD at the time of the exocet attack which blinded her defensive radar. If Sheffield hadnt been on to MOD, she would likely have seen the exocet and quite possiblly shot it down or used chaff.
Similarly, Coventry was lost because woodward insisted she and Broadsword(?) be close in to land despite being told by her captain he wouldmt get chance to shoot down any super etandards or skyhawks hopping over the islands. Even then, fate dealt Coventry a bad deal when acquiring a lock on the Argentine attack planes, her escort Broadsword(?) interferred with the lock which was lost. The rest sadly is history.
In this instance we can see first woodward's decision to offer Coventry and Broadsword(?) as sacrificial lambs was nothing short of treasonable and second, if Broadsword(?) hadnt of interupted Coventry's missle lock may have had a fighting chance.
