Would not a single effective raid on the Argie National Command not have achieved positive results and saved a lot of blood shed perhaps? Just as if we had been effective in doing so during Gulf War 1 by whacking Saddam as the kickoff to the whole game?
The question really goes to what the Strategic Objectives were.....and how Assets or the lack of played into the decision making. If one does not have the capability then no matter how one would like to wage the war....necessity dictates the strategy employed.
Long Range Strategic Bombing during the Falklands really wasn't one of the choices now was it?
Thus, if the RAF was going to participate, lacking land bases and other forward operating areas.....the bag of tricks to be drawn from was quite small.
Simple example is the delay in getting the RAF Harriers into the action.....and sadly now BN came to be the only Chinook.
You must admit the British Military especially the RAF was at a great disadvantage in a lot of very serious regards.
There is a thread here discussing a "future" war over the Falklands....and many of the posts are quite similar to some here re capability, assets, and the like.
So what is new in War....particularly in far off places quite remote and distant from the Homeland and Allies.