I think I differ only slightly from the above post.
The plan.
1. What the BB crews did was remarkable.
2. The plan, I believe was sound, why not demonstrate reach? It might show the enemy that his homeland was under threat. It might trick the enemy into thinking we actually planned to target the mainland.
3. The plan, I believe was sound, Woodward thought Stanley might operate jets - any way of denying the enemy this freedom of manoeuvre should be exploited.
3A. As part of a concerted Joint venture the bombs could deny the use of the airfield to slow movers and Tac AT. Good plan.
4. The plan, I believe was sound, no-one else really needed the gas or bombs.
5. The plan, I believe was sound, no-one likes being bombed and the raid was likely to result in a lowering of the morale of some Argentinian troops.
6. It would at least give the junta something to worry about and the Sun something to shout about.
Execution.
What the guys did was remarkable, be it co-ord, tanking or actually employing weapons.
Debrief.
Here's where I differ from some. I have been fed the effects of the raid for 30 years. My hobby is military history. I want to find out the truth. The truth simply cannot contain phrases like 'It must have.' what i have heard for 30 years has largely been supposition based on how we'd have felt if someone had done it to us. I am free to research and debate bomber command, Singapore, the many Afghan experiences the Uk has had. Why not cast an eye over BB in the cold light of day? How else do we learn?
So to take the points in order:
1. The crew did a magnificent job. Indisputable.
2. We definitely demonstrated reach to ourselves and there is evidence that a small number of AAF jets* were re-tasked to AD of the homeland vice attacking our chaps. This was a close run encounter, single sorties were important.
3. Evidence suggests that the enemy never did intend to use the runway for fast air. Oh well, how were we to know.
3A. We can claim a 'disrupt' here but no more. Oh well...thems the breaks.
4. Good plan, no-one ran out of gas or bombs.
5. In all probability it did lower the Argentine morale but maybe not amongst the frontline elements. We have no way of knowing because we are working off assumptions based on the observation of troops around Stanley.
6. I cannot speak for the junta as I can find no record of their discussions. The Sun definitely did shout.
* If we rule out the twin seaters, that couldn't get to the FI due fuel load, and the jets based at Tandil which is 200 nm south of BA (so suspect they were simply left there when Grupo 8 deployed) we have evidence to suggest 2/3 Dagger were based in BA that could have supported the war effort in the south. Probably enough to man a QRA pair. This is significant - every little helps - but not a game changer.
Summary. BB was a sound plan. To some it appears a poor investment, others have spent a long time claiming effects that don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. No-one needed the assets it used and it did have some effect on the enemy. From an aircrew point of view (perhaps demonstrated by future aborts and low sortie rate) it is remarkable that the guys achieved what they did.