In 1982, why didn't USSR supply Argentina with additional weapons to sink the British fleet?

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

With only 5 anti ship missiles and limited number of obsolete 1960s Mirage III and A-4 and Etendard, Argentina was able to sink 2 destroyers, 2 frigates, and several large ships, and shot down 10 British fighter jets and 24 British helicopters, crippling the British navy. If Argentina got fresh supplies, they would have driven Britain out of South America once and for all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

USSR could have supplied then state of the art MiG-31 fighter jets and hundreds of anti ship missiles to sink the British carrier and Britain would have lost to Argentina.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Aircraft are just for airshows.

 

[gangsta_rap]

This would have resulted in the US directly intervening in the falklands war.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

This would have resulted in the US directly intervening in the falklands war.

By doing what? Supply weapons to Britain? America only had a few carriers at the time.

 

[TexasJohn]

By doing what? Supply weapons to Britain? America only had a few carriers at the time.

I don't know what you consider "few". we sent four carriers to Lebanon back then. The rest were in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and elsewhere during the cold war. Read this:
https://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-us-navy-have-10-or-19-aircraft-carriers/

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

I don't know what you consider "few". we sent four carriers to Lebanon back then. The rest were in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and elsewhere during the cold war. Read this:
https://thediplomat.com/2014/04/does-the-us-navy-have-10-or-19-aircraft-carriers/

American carriers would have been easy targets for USSR anti ship missiles supplied to Argentina. Britain almost lost its carrier at Falklands. It would certainly have been sunk if Argentina had more than 5 anti ship missiles.

 

[TexasJohn]

American carriers would have been easy targets for USSR anti ship missiles supplied to Argentina. Britain almost lost its carrier at Falklands. It would certainly have been sunk if Argentina had more than 5 anti ship missiles.

How do you figure Britain almost lost it's carrier? any details at all?
If US carriers were such easy targets for USSR anti ship missiles, how come the USSR did not sink a SINGLE US carrier?

 

[gangsta_rap]

American carriers would have been easy targets for USSR anti ship missiles supplied to Argentina. Britain almost lost its carrier at Falklands. It would certainly have been sunk if Argentina had more than 5 anti ship missiles.

the US would've spearheaded for Buenos Aires which is to the north and far away from the islands. Argentina wouldn't have had the means to fight two fronts like that.
if argentina recieved soviet gear and material in such a short duration they wouldve needed russian advisors and personal to support it. That wouldve caused an incredibly difficult diplomatic situation for the USSR.

All of this wouldn't have been possible at all in the first place since argentina was under an oligarchy that was brutally anti-communist. The USSR wouldn't have supported anything like that lol

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

the US would've spearheaded for Buenos Aires which is to the north and far away from the islands. Argentina wouldn't have had the means to fight two fronts like that.
if argentina recieved soviet gear and material in such a short duration they wouldve needed russian advisors and personal to support it. That wouldve caused an incredibly difficult diplomatic situation for the USSR.

All of this wouldn't have been possible at all in the first place since argentina was under an oligarchy that was brutally anti-communist. The USSR wouldn't have supported anything like that lol

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. America supplied Stinger missiles to Taliban to fight USSR in Afghanistan. USSR can return the favor and supply anti tank missiles and anti ship missiles to Argentina and fight America in South America. Let's see how many casualties the American public are willing to have.

 

[Damir877]

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. America supplied Stinger missiles to Taliban to fight USSR in Afghanistan. USSR can return the favor and supply anti tank missiles and anti ship missiles to Argentina and fight America in South America. Let's see how many casualties the American public are willing to have.

Stingers were supplied by the end of Soviet-afghan war in 1986-1987 onwards,not during Falkland war.Besides Soviets arming Argentina would probably result in US,UK and other countries returning the favor by arming Afghans earlier and maybe even with more powerful weapons.
So Soviets would have more casualties and Britain would still defeat Argentina even if they lost a ship or two.Lose-lose situation for everyone involved

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

So Soviets would have more casualties and Britain would still defeat Argentina

Britain cannot beat Argentina without a carrier. Britain's carrier would have been sunk if Argentina got more anti ship missiles.

 

[Damir877]

Britain cannot beat Argentina without a carrier. Britain's carrier would have been sunk if Argentina got more anti ship missiles.

I agree but destroying a carrier is easier said then done.
On top of that it would have global consequences,like maybe US getting involved.Simply put that was not a war British would allow to lose easily and a couple missiles would not make a difference.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

I agree but destroying a carrier is easier said then done.

All it takes is 1 missile.

like maybe US getting involved

America public has no stomach for massive casualties after what happened in Vietnam.

Simply put that was not a war British would allow to lose easily and a couple missiles would not make a difference.

Britain lost America, surrendered. British do surrender.

 

[Damir877]

All it takes is 1 missile.



America public has no stomach for massive casualties after what happened in Vietnam.



Britain lost America, surrendered. British do surrender.

So you seriously think hitting British aircraft carrier would make British give up and go home while Americans casually watch their closest ally struggle without doing anything....

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

So you seriously think hitting British aircraft carrier would make British give up and go home while Americans casually watch their closest ally struggle without doing anything....

What are they going to do? Build another carrier and try again? I don't think so.