Covert airfield warning instead of mainland attack

Why would a covert SAS mission in Argentina pose a different escalation risk from cruise-missile strikes?

The panel distinguishes an intelligence mission that could remain undiscovered or deniable from an overt missile attack, while acknowledging the risk of discovery.

The reply distinguishes an undiscovered covert mission from the visible act of launching cruise missiles at the Argentine mainland. Airfield observation is described as a major intended SAS task, with departure reports helping estimate when raids would reach the fleet. That warning could allow a combat air patrol to be ready for the approaching aircraft. A participant recalls, with uncertainty, discussions of using cooperation with Chile to maintain plausible deniability if personnel were captured. The proposed cover is not treated as a guarantee of avoiding escalation. The exchange ends by preferring a reliable Tigerfish torpedo to the complications of mainland missile attacks.