If Argentinians were pascificts there wouldn't have been a war. It's funny how those who argue against pascifism always insist on a scenario where the aggressors can't possibly be pascifist in order to get their example off the ground. And then insist it's perfectly plausible that all the defending nation could turn into pascifists and invite disaster, in order to make their point. In any scenario that allows for everyone to become pascifist then wars wouldn't get off the ground. And if you don't allow for the scenario that everyone could become pascifist, then why invoke the scenario of a whole defending nation turning pascifist? If it's unrealistic on one side it's unrealistic on the other.
In reality it is healthy in democracies to have some people who refuse to fight. The alternative is not a free society. And in the long run elimination of war and universal pascifism should be the goal. Unrealistic? Maybe, but it's the only real chance humanity has got to survive.