I don't think it's entirely fair to say that the UK got lucky by winning back the Falklands last time, merely that we were lucky to not lose more troops & ships than we did. It could have been a lot more difficult but for the help that the US gave us both politically and logistically, *that* made a big difference. But I don't underestimate the commitment & ability of the Argentine forces either, lets not forget that despite our own military personnel experience (at that time mostly in low-intensity conflict & FIBUA, not open warfare), they entered that conflict, and gulf 1, with a lot of gaffer tape, string & equipment dating back to the 50s. we still have a lot of that now. I think you'd find in the unlikely event that Argentina elected to get their forces into a full state of readiness and actually launched an attack, the US would indeed get more actively involved, because this time we'd have to present them with some alternatives they would not like. All else aside, there's been rather a lot of PR in the US regarding Britain standing alongside the US since the first gulf war - whether or not the British public are comfortable with the apparent nature of it, and I suspect there would be a greater appetite from the US public to step up. In case nobody noticed, there's almost certainly a new conflict gaining momentum in the gulf right now, and the US are actually relying quite heavily on the British presence there. If we were forced to reduce our commitment to the coalition in order to address a problem in the south atlantic, it would cause untold delays in the middle-east conflicts & probably also an unnecessary additional increase to the loss of life from that coalition in it's current & future commitments. Some of these WW2 comments are just laughable, by the way.