Keeping four Invincible-class aircraft carriers with full Harrier complements and airborne early warning, HMS Endurance, and a larger Falklands garrison could have raised Argentina's threshold for war. Additional forces might have prevented the invasion, but the argument is deliberately conditional: a stronger posture would at least have made the choice harder and riskier. Norway in 1940 offers the same counterfactual test, with more regular troops, better-prepared reserves, and modern warships potentially improving its response to Germany. The comparison separates strategic deterrence from the conventional forces needed to answer coercion and conflict below the nuclear threshold.
Notable Point · 7:35-10:57
Why deterrence costs less than war
Falklands and Norwegian examples illustrate the argument that credible forces in peacetime can be far cheaper than recovering from deterrence failure.