The idea was two fold, firstly show the global reach and secondly to try and restrict use of the runway. Loading a Harrier up with bombs is a sure way to limit their range. The harriers were used for PhotoRec where they didn't need heavy weapons loaded on.
Personally I would worry more about the deaths and casualties on both sides than whether it propped up a government.
French weren't too friendly with exocet support (no kill codes either ?) ... if it replayed today and islands had defences they had at that time would our aircraft carrier and glued submarines provide a more rapid victory,
France did help the UK with exocet. they carried out practice raids on the task force on the way down to show the Royal Navy what an attack looks like from a super etendard and how to best counter it. The remainder of the missiles that Argentina had ordered were on route, but mysteriosly the french supply ship encountered technical issues that meant it sat still for the duration of the war. I wish I could pick on the French, but they were a solid allie, even more than the U.S. who were busy trying to be the UK's and Argentina's friends at least at a political level. The US armed forces helped faster and probably more than they were supposed to.
You'd need a lawyer to untangle the legalese falklands are overseas territory, the Channel Islands are a crown dependency and the Isle of Man has its own parliament so goodness knows what an attack on any would count as
Or a change of heart from the population which seems unlikely! The Argentinian government would be better off trying to bribe the population it would likely be cheaper and quicker than re-arming and attempting to re-take the islands.
If you read the history of the negotiations there was a time when the population were onside under the labour governments negotiations and they were open to a long lease back deal with transition of sovereignty to Argentina. Travel between the islands and Argentina was easy and kids were enrolling schools and colleges on the mainland. It was only later that this position changed when the next negotiating team took over and the Tory back benches started stirring that things went south.
Really it was more of a wee’ing contest between the services the RAF desperately wanted to get involved especially as the reasoning for us not replacing our aircraft carriers was that the RAF said they could project force globally. They burnt an incredible amount of fuel and money to achieve one limited if stunningly impressive success. The follow ups to the initial run achieved next to nothing beyond demonstrating our ability to project non nuclear force to the Argentine mainland if required. It is an endless debate, was blackbuck necessary? Were the harriers used effectively? Did the task force need to sit so far out to sea? It’s why it makes such a great topic of conversation and debate the falklands war was full of what ifs, almost a and debatable choices spurred by inter force rivalries some of which had tragic consequences like the needless loss or Sir Galahad and those on board. The one good thing is it is not happening again anytime soon and the advent of the submarine launched cruise missile combined with the presence of typhoons on the islands swings the balance massively against Argentina.
