Should the Falklands War have required intervention from the rest of NATO?

[So the Heroes Fall]

Argentina did in fact attack the United Kingdom after all.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

I'm not sure about language of the treaty, but since British didn't request allies from NATO to participate, I guess not.

[SPC]

That would be awkward, albeit not unprecedented for the United States to have to fight against its own ally

[Vasall des Midas]

Argentina did in fact attack the United Kingdom after all.

In fact, it did nothing of the kind.

The 14 British Overseas Territories are under the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, though they do not form part of it.

Also, to be hyperformalistic, at the time of the Falklands War they were called the British Dependent Territories.

[Pilchard]

Probably not, as Article 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty says an attack on a member would need to be north of the Tropic of Cancer to invoke the collective self defence of Article 5.

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France [2], on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.