What would Tomahawk add without widening the Falklands War?

What could submarine-launched Tomahawk do that the fleet could not already do, without escalating the war?

It could add long-range strikes without risking captured pilots, but mainland attacks would raise escalation and diplomatic problems, with stockpiles limiting a prolonged campaign.

The follow-up asks what cruise missiles would accomplish that the existing fleet could not, without escalating the conflict. Proposed uses include striking the Argentine carrier, forces in the South Georgia operation, and mainland runways. The discussion identifies avoiding captured aircrew as an advantage of missile strikes. Another participant objects that attacking mainland Argentina could turn the campaign into a wider war and create problems with Chile and the United States. Britain's reported use of most of its 4.5-inch gun ammunition by the campaign's end raises doubts about sustaining a prolonged war. The exchange leaves the balance between extra strike reach and escalation unresolved, and does not establish that missiles could replace the capture and occupation of territory.