I would guess that at this point, the notion is that in any serious conflict the US would be involved. Those gaps could be easily filled in that context.
I guess it really depends on US-Argentina relations, and also whether the UK looks like they actually need any help.
The US could at least help out covertly. "Whoops, the entire Argentinian Navy just exploded at once! I guess the British must have more submarines down there than we thought!"
Realistically from what I've read, Argentina is so militarily depleted nowadays, and the UK has learned so much from the previous war, that Argentina couldn't even win a war against the British forces garrisoned in the Falklands, let alone the reinforcements. There is no chance of a serious war... although when I went to Argentina last year I found there's still freaking road signs by the side of the road with a map of the Falklands and proclaiming "Las Malvinas son Argentinas" (or whatever the correct Spanish is)
Guess you've forgotten the British contribution to the Korean war?
Then again I guess we forgot the US stabbing us in the back in Suez.
Argentina couldn't even win a war against the British forces garrisoned in the Falklands, let alone the reinforcements
It does boggle the mind that 4 Typhoons and an Infantry company is enough these days.
There were a heck of a lot of USAF C-141s on Ascension Island during the conflict. We haven't even been told half of what went on, even the crews transiting southbound weren't privy to what was in them ( and I've asked a few ).
Over 100 AIM-9L missiles were delivered to the UK forces from the US production lines, and in some cases from USAF fighter units, within 48 hours of the request. The all-apect-seeking '9L was critical in achieving air superiority as the '9G model in UK service was basically tail-chase only.
Satellite imagery was also made available on a daily basis.
Mr Reagan also, apparently, personally offered a CVN for general support duties in the Atlantic ( SAR, refuelling etc ) though I haven't seen any official confirmation of that.
the major war prior to the Falklands was Vietnam, and the British didn't help out in that one
President Trump isn't really interested in dismantling NATO, just in making sure that the US doesn't have to continue to shoulder quite such a large fraction of the costs.
Personally, I doubt that Falklands II will ever happen because the Argentinians never substantially rebuilt their airforce.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1312_Flight_RAF
The US, or more specifically Reagan, offered Thatcher use of a carrier or two if one of ours was lost. Supposedly it was going to be navy to navy with as little involvement of politics as possible. Oh, and they sold us a bunch of extra sidewinders at zero notice.
So we helped by delivering missiles early and even supposedly offered to lend you a carrier (which would be crewed by the UK), but didn't get involved directly. I doubt the Argentinians were much happier than they'd have been if we started dropping bombs, but that was the thinking.