NationStates Jolt Archive

hehe why even ask the question.

We all know that we Brits would win. We used to own half the world, we're just too nice and gave it all back again!

yea. That is why people were killing you in the Arab World. why we seperated from you with guns in the 1770s. Uh uh.

The US does not at the moment have the available forces to involve itself in an operation the size of which would be required to acomplish an invasion of the UK. Period. Full Stop. If we pulled out all units from combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, peace keeping and other obligations in the Balkans, Korea, and elsewhere, and activated every reserve and NG unit, we might have the necessary manpower to invade, but we would not have the manpower to occupy.

And, as some posters are taking this the other way, the UK has neither the power projection capacity, the man power, nor the industrial base to defeat the US.

I agree with this state 100%

I think the war would be a tactical defeat for the Americans, although it would likely end up being a strategic victory. The Royal Navy would embarrass the Americans in single-ship actions, but once the USN gets its shit together (which it will do, mind), their superior numbers and comparable quality will eventually wear out the Royal Navy.

If the U.S. were to launch an invasion without ensuring complete control of the sea lanes of communication or without suppressing the RAF, it would be an unmitigated disaster. The U.S. likely would have to concentrate its efforts on blockading the English Channel and on starving out the British. If the Americans can cut off British logistics, that would set up a more favourable invasion.

Once American troops landed, however, the tide would turn against them as the British have proven to be much more adaptable than the Americans to changing conditions.

My conclusion? The U.S. would win a protracted war IF there were sufficient support, both politically and militarily. However, my scenario assumes a perfect storm of stuff going the way of the Americans. In a shorter conflict where the U.S. nerves are at question, the British would prevail.

I think the war would be a tactical defeat for the Americans, although it would likely end up being a strategic victory. The Royal Navy would embarrass the Americans in single-ship actions, but once the USN gets its shit together (which it will do, mind), their superior numbers and comparable quality will eventually wear out the Royal Navy.

You do realize that our ships travel in groups right?

If the U.S. were to launch an invasion without ensuring complete control of the sea lanes of communication or without suppressing the RAF, it would be an unmitigated disaster.

First rule of warfare, target government and military targets to disrupt command and control. Not to mention target infrastructure. I don't think this will be a problem.

I think the war would be a tactical defeat for the Americans, although it would likely end up being a strategic victory. The Royal Navy would embarrass the Americans in single-ship actions, but once the USN gets its shit together (which it will do, mind), their superior numbers and comparable quality will eventually wear out the Royal Navy.

If the U.S. were to launch an invasion without ensuring complete control of the sea lanes of communication or without suppressing the RAF, it would be an unmitigated disaster. The U.S. likely would have to concentrate its efforts on blockading the English Channel and on starving out the British. If the Americans can cut off British logistics, that would set up a more favourable invasion.

Once American troops landed, however, the tide would turn against them as the British have proven to be much more adaptable than the Americans to changing conditions.

My conclusion? The U.S. would win a protracted war IF there were sufficient support, both politically and militarily. However, my scenario assumes a perfect storm of stuff going the way of the Americans. In a shorter conflict where the U.S. nerves are at question, the British would prevail.

:headbang:

forget comedy central, I'm tuning in to this.

It wouldn't even be fair.

US Navy:
500,000 personnel (that is plus reserves)
281 ships
4000 aircraft

Royal Navy:
36,320 personnel (that's active)
90 ships
250 aircraft

US Air Force:
352,000 personnel (active)
9000 aircraft

Royal Air Force:
49,210 personnel (active)
940 aircraft

US Army:
485,500 personnel (active) + 600,000 or so reserves
about 7500 Abrams

British Army:
137,440 personnel
386 Challenger 2

Why would anyone think this is a contest?

US Navy:
500,000 personnel (that is plus reserves)
281 ships
4000 aircraft

Royal Navy:
36,320 personnel (that's active)
90 ships
250 aircraft

US Air Force:
352,000 personnel (active)
9000 aircraft

Royal Air Force:
49,210 personnel (active)
940 aircraft

US Army:
485,500 personnel (active) + 600,000 or so reserves
about 7500 Abrams

British Army:
137,440 personnel
386 Challenger 2

Why would anyone think this is a contest?


:p

WE WILL NEVER GO TO WAR WITH BRITAIN! Wanna know why?

My hat's off to you chap. Thanks man.


Para risked his life to save US soldier hurt in Taliban attack
By Thomas Harding in Camp Bastion
(Filed: 21/06/2006)

A Paratrooper who ran to the aid of a wounded American soldier while under heavy fire could be among the first British troops to be awarded a gallantry medal in Afghanistan.

Pte Peter McKinley has been praised by his commanders for a "massive display of bravery" after saving the life of the US sergeant in one of the most intense battles 3 Bn the Parachute Regiment has experienced during its deployment to Helmand province.


Pte Peter McKinley ran across open ground as enemy rounds passed overhead

Military sources said he would receive recognition for his courageous act. Pte McKinley, 21, was part of a 100-strong force of Paras that came to the rescue of an American convoy of 10 vehicles that had been ambushed near the town of Sangin in northern Helmand.

The Americans had taken high ground where the Paras formed a defensive cordon, but as darkness descended a force of 30 heavily armed Taliban crept close to their position and opened fire with rocket-propelled grenades and heavy machine guns.

The first RPG round that announced the assault tore into a Humvee jeep, badly wounding two American soldiers from a logistics regiment who had taken cover inside.

As the soldiers screamed "medic, medic", Pte McKinley, the trained first aid soldier in his eight-man section, jumped up and sprinted across open ground to the vehicle as enemy rounds passed overhead.

He found the Americans covered in blood with the sergeant's face shredded by shrapnel, an eye dislodged, his scalp torn back, a broken arm, a neck injury and fragments in his legs.

"They were still firing at us when I ran back to the Humvee," said the soldier from Manchester.

"The sergeant was in a pretty bad way but my training just kicked in and I spent about 15 minutes looking after his wounds, stemming the flow of blood and keeping his airway clear."

A medical officer later confirmed that the injured soldier was a "P1 Casualty" - the highest priority for evacuation and treatment - and he was evacuated to the British base at Camp Bastion.

Major Will Pike, the commander of A Company, said that for Pte McKinley ''to answer the call and go to someone and save their life'' while under fire was ''massively impressive''. He added: "He was very brave while completely disregarding his own safety.

"He also treated the American soldier beyond the level that as team medic he is expected to perform. We have a lot of private soldiers who are very young and just out of training but have proved very steady while under fire."

The fighting on June 13 was part of the early stages attempting to gain control of Helmand from the Taliban in an operation being led by the 2,000-strong 3 Para battlegroup.

The Paras, who arrived in Helmand two months ago, have been pushing forward into the hostile north of the province over the past two weeks. Yesterday two Taliban ambushes of civilian convoys left 30 people dead, officials said, as coalition and Afghan forces killed at least 11 militants.

More than 10,000 coalition and Afghan troops are fanning out across four southern provinces to combat the Taliban. A total of almost 6,000 British troops will have deployed to Afghanistan by the height of summer on a mission to bring control to an area that is in the grip of drug barons and Taliban insurgents.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3Q1OO3KBGPESVQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/06/21/wafg21.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/06/21/ixnews.html

With good commanders, the British have at least a small fighting chance for a stalemate. But in all regards, America should win decisively.

As an American, I think defeating Britain would be impossible. All the Brits would have to do is drop pictures of Kiera Knightley and Kate Beckinsale with pouty faces saying "Surrender Yanks" and I would immediately commit treason.

Assuming that the world geopolitcal climate has changed enough for this happen, most of the aboce mentioned stats would get tossed right out the window. The US economy would make an about face as the domestic economy would make an astounding revival due to increased military demand (Pennslyvania and the Ohio region in particular). Don't know much about the UK's economy in that area, but I'd predict similar events, just not as heavy since it is an island and they have to import more items. In terms of military production sites, most are located inland, except for Ruger Arms in Conneticut, a light vehicle factory in Upstate New York, and the tank factory in Virginia. Since warfare in mostly waged in terms of infantry still, car manufacturers would shift mostly towards military lines, and that Ruger is not a military contractor, the UK would have very little impact attacking them.

In terms of a UK invasion of the US, they would be fucked, plain and simple (one-on-one, of course). Even though the have very restrictive gun laws, the majority of US cities are heavily armed. NYC alone would take a week to eliminate all organized resistance, and I pity the poor fools who enter Harlem; they have LAWs down there (no joke). Afterwards, prepare for a very bitter guerilla war. And for the blue states going belly up? Not only would a British invasion revive historical sentiment from the populace, several "solid blue" states are anything but. The majority of New York is conservative, but all the population is centered around NYC, Albany, and Buffalo. And New Hampshire . . . That conservatives are the majority, but they're split, giving way to a slim liberal majority. No matter what, though, a state with the motto "Live Free Or Die" will put up one hell of a fight.

Simply put, the UK doesn't have the manpower to occupy the US and fight against a very standing US Army.

If the US invades the UK, I can see US victory, but at very heavy losses. Gun laws have never detered civilian partisans, and I don't see that making a difference in the UK, especially since they share the same background of freedom as the US (Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, anyone?). I can see the royal family fleeing to some other country as soon as the word "invasion" is said, so not all of the British government would be eradicated.

My final thoughts: pray to God it never happens.

*snip*

They better dang well give him the VC.

Queen Victoria had big boobs

They better dang well give him the VC.

Queen Victoria had big boobs


I agree...that kid (He's a private, so I'm assuming YOUNG guy) did some massively brave actions there.


As an American, I think defeating Britain would be impossible. All the Brits would have to do is drop pictures of Kiera Knightley and Kate Beckinsale with pouty faces saying "Surrender Yanks" and I would immediately commit treason.

Oooh...pyschological warfare....torture...they can't do that, they are supposed to be a civilized country. That's way too effective.....

:eek:

#1: There are no rules.

#2: Victor gets to make up the rules.

Nuff said about that.

No. I trash you.
Your lot isn't worth... much... unless you got Euros to back you up.
Proof of point: Vietnam.
No Euros, no victory.

Anyway: can you please say something about invading Britain with the 82nd or 101st Division?
Please?
But we didn't lose.:(
WE WILL NEVER GO TO WAR WITH BRITAIN! Wanna know why?

My hat's off to you chap. Thanks man.


Para risked his life to save US soldier hurt in Taliban attack
By Thomas Harding in Camp Bastion
(Filed: 21/06/2006)
......................
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...21/ixnews.html
Military Medal maybe...

Either way, you'd be looking at a victory for US Forces by sheer weight of numbers. However the victory would come at a massive loss for the Americans.

There have been regular bi-national training exercises between the two for a number of years. The Americans are yet to win one, even when given numerical superiority of up to 3:1.

Add to that the detail that America has never won a war/conflict/incursion without British help (Vietnam/Korea/The Great War (where the Germans got bored and went home, so everyone else declared victory), WWII etc.) while the British have not lost a war/conflict/incursion for over 150 years, whether fighting alone or with allies (The Boer War (The only time a future leader of the government has been captured by enemy forces)/The Great War/WWII/The Falklands etc.)

Furthermore you can add the British Special Forces to the list (SOE/SLS/SBS/SAS etc.), and the "semi-specials" (The Paras/The Gurkhas/Royal Marines etc.) and the Military Intelligence (SS [MI5]/SIS [MI6]/MOG) all of which are generally and specifically superior to their American equivalents.

Britain would never be so suicidal to attempt to invade the US and I'd really hate to be an American trying to invade sovereign British or Commonwealth soil and vice-versa.

As an American, I think defeating Britain would be impossible. All the Brits would have to do is drop pictures of Kiera Knightley and Kate Beckinsale with pouty faces saying "Surrender Yanks" and I would immediately commit treason.
*cough* Jessica Alba. *Cough cough*

...The only time a future leader of the government has been captured by enemy forces...
Sedan, 1870.

Either way, you'd be looking at a victory for US Forces by sheer weight of numbers. However the victory would come at a massive loss for the Americans.

There have been regular bi-national training exercises between the two for a number of years. The Americans are yet to win one, even when given numerical superiority of up to 3:1.

Add to that the detail that America has never won a war/conflict/incursion without British help (Vietnam/Korea/The Great War (where the Germans got bored and went home, so everyone else declared victory), WWII etc.) while the British have not lost a war/conflict/incursion for over 150 years, whether fighting alone or with allies (The Boer War (The only time a future leader of the government has been captured by enemy forces)/The Great War/WWII/The Falklands etc.)

Furthermore you can add the British Special Forces to the list (SOE/SLS/SBS/SAS etc.), and the "semi-specials" (The Paras/The Gurkhas/Royal Marines etc.) and the Military Intelligence (SS [MI5]/SIS [MI6]/MOG) all of which are generally and specifically superior to their American equivalents.

Britain would never be so suicidal to attempt to invade the US and I'd really hate to be an American trying to invade sovereign British or Commonwealth soil and vice-versa.


A lot of that is probably a matter of necessity. America has numerical superiority and technological superiority to almost all of its perceived enemies (technological is almost certainly the case with all of its perceived enemies).

As a nation we are just lazy when it comes to war. Look at every major military development the US has made in the last 20 years. Everything has basically boiled down to: "How much easier can I make it to push a button and have my enemy disappear?"

Whereas with the UK you have a much smaller nation with much fewer men at your disposal, so essentially you have to be really good or you will lose far too many resources against similarly equipped or staffed opponents (which while maybe not equipped there are several nations with comparable amounts of man power).


NT

That's a considerable landgrab, don'tcha think? And some nice help from weather. What colour are those glasses you're wearing? Rose? :rolleyes:

Go back to school, kid.
From my Miilitary History lecture notes at Sandhurst (you know, the place where the British Army trains it officers). If you watch the History channel, most of the talking heads on Military History are the Sandhurst History Lecturers.

"In Summary, the Soviet Union would have won the war against Nazi Germany on its own but it would have cost it at least another 5 million lives and probably another year of conflict. Stalin would not have stopped at the German border but would have proceeded to overrun the whole of Europe."

Now will you argue with the most eminent military historians on the planet or will you throw a hissy fit and say that they are liars. BTW-some of those lecturers are American too.

Fargozia']From my Miilitary History lecture notes at Sandhurst (you know, the place where the British Army trains it officers). If you watch the History channel, most of the talking heads on Military History are the Sandhurst History Lecturers.

"In Summary, the Soviet Union would have won the war against Nazi Germany on its own but it would have cost it at least another 5 million lives and probably another year of conflict. Stalin would not have stopped at the German border but would have proceeded to overrun the whole of Europe."

Now will you argue with the most eminent military historians on the planet or will you throw a hissy fit and say that they are liars. BTW-some of those lecturers are American too.


I'm not going to disagree with you on the "facts" of the case, but the original point still stands.


War torn Britain, minus US support, would not have been able to fend off either Germany or the USSR (depending on how long Stalin takes to get there) with the condition they were in. The US certainly didn't save the world by entering WWII, but it did make sure that western Europe didn't end up like Eastern Europe did during the last half century.

NT

Yeah, I think the defenders would find it easier to fight street-to-street though. Then again, I think the Americans (or any attackers) would have given Liverpool a good naval shelling and bombing from the air before an invasion.

That would be classed as urban improvement for Liverpool ;)

But we didn't lose.:(

Military Medal maybe...


Even if we were to lose one round, we still have our Empar.

There'll always be an England...
*band starts to play*

"In Summary, the Soviet Union would have won the war against Nazi Germany on its own but it would have cost it at least another 5 million lives and probably another year of conflict. Stalin would not have stopped at the German border but would have proceeded to overrun the whole of Europe."Is this including a Japanese invasion of the USSR? Somehow I doubt Stalin could have continued to push forward while the Japanese ran in the back door, but I'm no Sandhurst graduate either.

Is this including a Japanese invasion of the USSR? Somehow I doubt Stalin could have continued to push forward while the Japanese ran in the back door, but I'm no Sandhurst graduate either.


There were several altercations between Japan and the USSR during the late 1930ies.
Tactical Result? Nips got trashed.
Strategic Result? Every japanese strategist worthy of note councilled against trying again.

There were several altercations between Japan and the USSR during the late 1930ies.
Tactical Result? Nips got trashed.
Strategic Result? Every japanese strategist worthy of note councilled against trying again.

when the russians learned this, thats when they took their troops out of siberia and brought them down to fight the Germans

A lot of that is probably a matter of necessity. America has numerical superiority and technological superiority to almost all of its perceived enemies (technological is almost certainly the case with all of its perceived enemies).

As a nation we are just lazy when it comes to war. Look at every major military development the US has made in the last 20 years. Everything has basically boiled down to: "How much easier can I make it to push a button and have my enemy disappear?"

Whereas with the UK you have a much smaller nation with much fewer men at your disposal, so essentially you have to be really good or you will lose far too many resources against similarly equipped or staffed opponents (which while maybe not equipped there are several nations with comparable amounts of man power).


NT
To give you an example, to join the army, regualr regiment (Which are being improved and increased in size. Someones realsied that having our regulars as well trined as the Paras is a good idea.) you have about 2 years intense training, some of it useing live ammunition. While in the US your regular troops have maybe 6 months basic training, and your weapons and technology is far less effective-though far simpilar.

Basic british equipment is very advanced, but also very complicated. You need quite a bit of training to use it. British troops also have very effective protection-there well armoured. A US soildier one on one would get owned by a British regular.

However...British troops would eb heavly outnumbered. even consdiering a massive increase in people who joined up (See the WW1 and WW2 effect. In WW1 we feilded millions of troops, we could do that again) we would be outnumbered by the US and we'd probably be forced back.

In the Navy and Airforce you again have superiorty in numbers, and, in the navy, technology. Again though British troops are better trained, so we'd make you run for your money, especally if allies got involved.

Presuming you got landfall and advanced you'd be knackered. Britians plan in case of invasion is to withdraw to the citys and gurilla acion from the TA along with the civillian population. No doubt the goverment would have armed the civillians.

So the US would supper heavy losses, constant gurilla attacks and as you push out of cornwall and the south it'd become worse. I don't think that london/Birmingham and the other big citys would fall and invading Wales/Scotland/Yorkshire would be hellish as subduing those sort of areas would be very hard. These are massive expances of land and caves, mostly unmapped, with just a few people there. To give you an example, where I live is on a key route between Harrogate and Skipton. We could very easly just withdraw to the hills on quads/jeeps ect and you'd have to stick to the roads.

Reamber just abotu everyone up here is armed-I've got a shotgun myself. You'd be facing a thousand or so people in a enviroment that hasn't been mapped. We would aslo haev the support of the MArines at harrogate millitary base.

In this area there senough ambuhpints and hding palces to take youa ll year to root out people. Fo example Dibbles Bridge would be the perfect palce to ambush. You'd lose a lot of men there, and blowing that bridge would eman you'd have to go the long way round to try and attack Harrogate from the south-via Leeds.

I'd estimate casultys in the thousands trying to subdue the Dales.

I think the war would be a tactical defeat for the Americans, although it would likely end up being a strategic victory. The Royal Navy would embarrass the Americans in single-ship actions, but once the USN gets its shit together (which it will do, mind), their superior numbers and comparable quality will eventually wear out the Royal Navy.

If the U.S. were to launch an invasion without ensuring complete control of the sea lanes of communication or without suppressing the RAF, it would be an unmitigated disaster. The U.S. likely would have to concentrate its efforts on blockading the English Channel and on starving out the British. If the Americans can cut off British logistics, that would set up a more favourable invasion.

Once American troops landed, however, the tide would turn against them as the British have proven to be much more adaptable than the Americans to changing conditions.

My conclusion? The U.S. would win a protracted war IF there were sufficient support, both politically and militarily. However, my scenario assumes a perfect storm of stuff going the way of the Americans. In a shorter conflict where the U.S. nerves are at question, the British would prevail.

You forgot they'd also have to smash the cannel tunnel at both ends, which automatically birngs the EU into it.

I really hate it when nationalists claim that their side won 1812 when history clearly shows it to be a friggin draw. .
I believe that was my point, several pages ago. :rolleyes:

Military Medal maybe...

The Military Medal is now no longer awarded as it was regarded as "classist".

His possible awards are,

Mentioned in Despatches (oak leaf on his medal ribbon for Afghanistan)

The Queens Gallantry Medal,

The Military Cross (which the MM was subsumed into)

The Victoria Cross.

Is this including a Japanese invasion of the USSR? Somehow I doubt Stalin could have continued to push forward while the Japanese ran in the back door, but I'm no Sandhurst graduate either.

Uncle Joe had several Army Groups (that is 2-3 Armies together), that were sat in the Far East for the duration of "The Great Patriotic War" that were never sent west and some were used in the invasion of Manchuria.

Also Japan was already overstretched as China was sucking up resources, particularly manpower at an alarming rate.

I have gone through this entire thread and have not seen one reason why America and Great Britain could ever conceive of going to war.I mean, for two of the worlds' most stable democracies and robust economies who for many years have had each others backs to be in this position is,to me at least, inconceivable. Sure they have had their differences,but to have all diplomatic relations exhausted to the point of all out war,the mind boggles! It would i suspect, take years to reach this point and give more then enough time at least for everybody to take sides,thus precipitating WW 3,because one nuclear bomb dropped probably would start a domino effect and then we're all screwed.Canada would quickly fall in line with the U.S. because if we didn't all they would have to do is suspend all trade with us,thus paralysing our economy,'i knew too much reliance on trade with the U.S.would come back to haunt us one day', and we would meekly,for the most part,acquiesce.My 2 cents.

I don't think its ever been suggested on this thread that such a conflict was even remotely likely to occur. In fact I think quite the opposite has been suggested time and time again.


I merely entertained the prospect as a thought experiment to challenge the theoretical aspects of my capacity for rational thought, nothing more.


Canada, UK, US, Australia, and/or New Zealand going to war with any of the other is a ridiculous prospect by contemporary standards. It's just not going to happen. They'd sooner form some kind of mutant reconstituted "British Empire" than go to war with each other.

NT

True,but even in a theroetical sense i need to know what precipatated these events to better get a sense of the big picture,backwards and forwards.I am just curious that way.

To give you an example, to join the army, regualr regiment (Which are being improved and increased in size. Someones realsied that having our regulars as well trined as the Paras is a good idea.) you have about 2 years intense training, some of it useing live ammunition. While in the US your regular troops have maybe 6 months basic training, and your weapons and technology is far less effective-though far simpilar.

Basic british equipment is very advanced, but also very complicated. You need quite a bit of training to use it. British troops also have very effective protection-there well armoured. A US soildier one on one would get owned by a British regular.

However...British troops would eb heavly outnumbered. even consdiering a massive increase in people who joined up (See the WW1 and WW2 effect. In WW1 we feilded millions of troops, we could do that again) we would be outnumbered by the US and we'd probably be forced back.

In the Navy and Airforce you again have superiorty in numbers, and, in the navy, technology. Again though British troops are better trained, so we'd make you run for your money, especally if allies got involved.

Presuming you got landfall and advanced you'd be knackered. Britians plan in case of invasion is to withdraw to the citys and gurilla acion from the TA along with the civillian population. No doubt the goverment would have armed the civillians.

So the US would supper heavy losses, constant gurilla attacks and as you push out of cornwall and the south it'd become worse. I don't think that london/Birmingham and the other big citys would fall and invading Wales/Scotland/Yorkshire would be hellish as subduing those sort of areas would be very hard. These are massive expances of land and caves, mostly unmapped, with just a few people there. To give you an example, where I live is on a key route between Harrogate and Skipton. We could very easly just withdraw to the hills on quads/jeeps ect and you'd have to stick to the roads.

Reamber just abotu everyone up here is armed-I've got a shotgun myself. You'd be facing a thousand or so people in a enviroment that hasn't been mapped. We would aslo haev the support of the MArines at harrogate millitary base.

In this area there senough ambuhpints and hding palces to take youa ll year to root out people. Fo example Dibbles Bridge would be the perfect palce to ambush. You'd lose a lot of men there, and blowing that bridge would eman you'd have to go the long way round to try and attack Harrogate from the south-via Leeds.

I'd estimate casultys in the thousands trying to subdue the Dales.

Have you served in the British Military? Because your description of the gear does not match up with my experience of it.

Our soldiers are a match for any in the world, however our equipment would be rejected by many a third world country. We are trying to field a first world force on a third world budget.

Hopefully America would bow to pressure from it´s "Irish" voters and invade Northern Ireland first. That should keep them busy for a decade or two, whilst we invade mainland U.S via Canada.

Assuming that something went seriously wrong with the internal politics of the US and/or UK, and the US decided to invade Britiain it would take years for a clear cut outcome.

Firstly you'd have to deal with a population that wound up with plenty of Anti-American sentiment, prepared to fight tooth and nail for our little country. Guerilla Warfare would engulf any area US troops set foot. I grant that the US already have a number of military bases here already, but surely if political relations dropped so low as to invoke an invasion, all of those troops would be withdrawn (leaving plenty of high-tech goodies for UK troops/militia to pillage).

Secondly (as already mentioned), the UK would be far more likely to drum up support from a mixture of Commonwealth countries and the ever increasing EU.

Thirdly (which I don't think anyone has brought up yet), the economy of both the US & UK would be completely fucked. America couldn't afford to level British cities such as London because the financial chaos caused would fatally damage the US ecomony.

If anything this third point is the one thing that will absolutely guarantee this will not happen in the current (or near future) climate.

Anyway, what would America want with the UK in the first place? We don't have any natural resources America needs. The major industries in the UK are either service of financially orientated, which the US already has plenty of.

And our weather is enough to put most of countries off invading us anyway ;)

a war would pwn the whole world

Anyway, what would America want with the UK in the first place? We don't have any natural resources America needs. The major industries in the UK are either service of financially orientated, which the US already has plenty of.

And our weather is enough to put most of countries off invading us anyway ;)

Love the way everyone assumes it would be the US starting the war.

Have you served in the British Military? Because your description of the gear does not match up with my experience of it.

Our soldiers are a match for any in the world, however our equipment would be rejected by many a third world country. We are trying to field a first world force on a third world budget.

Hopefully America would bow to pressure from it´s "Irish" voters and invade Northern Ireland first. That should keep them busy for a decade or two, whilst we invade mainland U.S via Canada.
Personally I'm in the cadets, but my Uncle was in the marines and I've been voer to America and seen some of the equipment there basic troopers use. It's not as good as our stuff (Not that I'm saying our weapondry is good.) In my, admittedly limited, experience the British forces are resonably well armed and equipped, certainly far better than our American counterparts. Like the NHS most of the equipment is good but there are one or two problems that get grossley overblown-the stuff about not enough flak-jackets for example. There are a lot of American troops in Iraq without that equipment but because that was so common it wasn't seen as a big deal for them. I think one company (Memory might be wrong ehre) of ours didn't have them and the Daily Mail went nuts about it.

Admittedly a larger millitary buget would be nice alon with better equipment but the weapons are mostly good and everyone ahs Helmats and Flak jackets if they need them-espacally after the buisness descibed above. the Challanger 3 tanks are a good tank, not as good as the Abrahm though and certainly our training is better than our US coutnerparts.

Of course trainign isn't much good if they have 4 or 5 more soildiers than we do...

Love the way everyone assumes it would be the US starting the war.
...recent history, you know, invading innocent countrys, taking down regimes for oil, massicars of civillains... Bush being in charge...

Love the way everyone assumes it would be the US starting the war.

From the first post:

The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change.

From the first post:

I cant ever see the US going to war with one of its best friends and closest allies , one that has stood side by side and shed blood with us over some of the most horrible wars ever fought .

So I cant Imagine a "regime" that could exist that the people of Britain couldnt handle with their own two fist...and of course the people of the US would be right there beside them with any thing they needed including our flesh and blood if nessessary .

The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change.

Presuming that they can find the UK in the first place.

Presuming that they can find the UK in the first place.
We don't have to, it's connected by a tunnel to France, just follow the shouts of surrender. :p (And that was this thread's obligitory cheap shot at France...)

Presuming that they can find the UK in the first place.
*Nods* They'll probably forget that Ireland is in the way...

Presuming that they can find the UK in the first place.

or go the wrong way and end up in Japan

Love the way everyone assumes it would be the US starting the war.
Well as hard as it is to imagine the US invading Britain, it's even harder to imagine the UK deciding to commit suicide by attacking the US.

If I were defending Britain I probably wouldn't even bother trying to fight a conventional war, it'd be so uneven. It's a shame because lots of Britain makes good defensive tank terrain, but it'd just hand the enemy a propaganda victory, as well as eroding your manpower. I'd try to find some way to send the Royal Navy to the Russians to keep it safe and disband the army into the community. What I would do is what we did last time we were threatened by invasion, that is plan the resistance before the enemy lands by salting special forces through out the country with enough explosives to blow up half of Great Britain. Issue all the soldiers with new identities and documents then destroy all the records of who's who including the consumer data of British companies.
An fully armed citizenry is a nice idea for a resistance movement, but it'll soon turn into a slightly dead and disarmed citizenry, and you won't even get a propaganda benefit out of it because they were armed and fighting when they were killed. No, you're better off with a small core of professionals supported by the community, a bit like the IRA but bigger and better trained. Then wage a standard guerilla campaign, blowing up convoys, shooting down helicopters, standard sort of thing. You could get more weaponry from a presumably sympathetic Europe, and if you wanted you could probably sneak into the US through Canada or even by canoe or something and blow up military targets there.

Add to that the detail that America has never won a war/conflict/incursion without British help
Try the Mexican War of 1846-1848. Try the Civil War (1861-1865). Try the Spanish-American War of 1898. In none of those wars did the U.S. get even a speck of British military help. In fact, the British were considering coming into the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. It took the Battle of Antietam to even give them pause. It took the Gettysburg Address for them to stop that notion once and for all.

I find it really hard to believe that the Allies would have been able to defeat the Central Powers without American help. I could see a stalemate at best for the Allies if the U.S. maintains its isolationist stance and/or the Kaiser doesn't invoke unrestricted submarine warfare.

Try the Mexican War of 1846-1848. Try the Civil War (1861-1865). Try the Spanish-American War of 1898. In none of those wars did the U.S. get even a speck of British military help. In fact, the British were considering coming into the Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. It took the Battle of Antietam to even give them pause. It took the Gettysburg Address for them to stop that notion once and for all.

I find it really hard to believe that the Allies would have been able to defeat the Central Powers without American help. I could see a stalemate at best for the Allies if the U.S. maintains its isolationist stance and/or the Kaiser doesn't invoke unrestricted submarine warfare.

you cant count a civil war, because tecnically, half of you lost

I like your thinking Yossarian, except for the following:

I'd try to find some way to send the Royal Navy to the Russians to keep it safe

Good in principle, but the Russians have a tendency to flog their naval stuff to places like Iran. That's hardly keeping it safe with the New Fatherland being the good-ol' U.S. of A!

Also not that keen to: just hand the enemy a propaganda victory I'm not really a patriotic sort, but waving a white flag as soon as the first GIs land doesn't sound that British to me.

Just my personal opinion :p

We do what we do best, launch a big load of wooden ships.
Since the French are in no mood to help the US this time, we win all the coastal battles.
The last time the US Army has won over the Royal Army was when the US had a french bodyguard... ( Yorktown ).

The only reason the US needed France during the Revolution was because the Americans were far poorer than the British, they were running out of supplies and men due to winter and other things. You also have to consider that that was the first 'official' American militia, as there wasn't one prior to that. And as far as I know, the French weren't at Yorktown. Cornwallis surrendered because the British were not going to get out of it easily, and they were going to lose. The British really didn't have a personal reason to fight, but the Americans did, we were determined to win our independence, and we needed French help.

However, now, we have our independence, and a very powerful military, so we don't need French help.

To be honest, it's either going to be a stalemate, or the Americans will win. It's going to end up very badly though, for both sides.

And what does Argentina have to do with it anyway...?:confused:

Uhhhh, I only got as far as page 5, but I read something about Canada invading the u.s.? That is borderlind retarded. Canada's air-force went bankrubt four years ago. Also, with Canada's fighting spirit, we are twice as likely to be attacked by the French, and 10 times as likely to be attacked the Vatican.

Good in principle, but the Russians have a tendency to flog their naval stuff to places like Iran. That's hardly keeping it safe with the New Fatherland being the good-ol' U.S. of A!

My thinking with the Russians is that they'd take it personally not giving in to the US's demand to give up the fleet and even have the cojones to possibly retaliate with nukes if the US attacks them. I mean you wouldn't really trust the Royal Navy to the Europeans. But there is an issue with what sort of conditions you'd have to give to the Russians about what they could do with it, and if and when you can have it back and for how much. :)

Also not that keen to: I'm not really a patriotic sort, but waving a white flag as soon as the first GIs land doesn't sound that British to me.

It's a difficult decision, but if your country's about to be flattened by the US then you probably have to make difficult decisions. For me it's the difference it makes on the public's opinion. If you let the army fight and get flattened, they're going to be thinking, "Ah well we gave it our best shot but we were outclassed, now lets try to get along with our new American overlords. " Whereas hopefully with my plan they'll be thinking more, "what's going on I want to fight! Give me a rifle and I'll go and pop some of those yankee bastards!" It means you can get the insurgency up to full speed immediately.

Good point! I hadn't thought of that - although I imagine a government who gave in too quickly would get a ripped apart by the public. Some sort of token defense, strategically withdrawing to buy time special forces to be inserted into the general populace like you were suggesting might do the trick?

The premise is inconceivable. In 150 years no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another. Certainly, the American military, whose budget exceeds the military budgets of the entire rest of the world combined, is militarily and economically superior to Britain. But, that makes no difference. The American people would not support a war against Britain, and as we saw in the American-Vietnam War, without domestic support there is no victory.

The premise is inconceivable. In 150 years no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another.

No two democracies have gone to war in 150 years? Excuse me- have you heard of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Two democracies, yes both countries had effective democracies at the time where at least a significant section of the population could carry out self determination.

The US Civil War could be counted as that too, depending on how you define a democracy.

Hmm... I'm tempted to say that the US would win outright in a few days, but we've been sharing most of our technology with the English for the last 70 years.
My prediction: US bombs and cruise missles the hell out of England for months and finally sweeps in for the kill, taking the island 2 months after the initial land invasion.

Apologies for the bump.

Printing this off tomorrow, and I don't want it purged.

As you were, mortals.

Hmm... I'm tempted to say that the US would win outright in a few days, but we've been sharing most of our technology with the English for the last 70 years.

I think that's a little unfair, not to mention arrogant. Sure the British have bought US kit and technology in the past, but then the US military has bought plenty of British kit too. The majority of equipment used in both countries is still home-grown though.
Good point! I hadn't thought of that - although I imagine a government who gave in too quickly would get a ripped apart by the public. Some sort of token defense, strategically withdrawing to buy time special forces to be inserted into the general populace like you were suggesting might do the trick?
I think you'd have to plan the resistance a little bit in advance, but since you can't plan an invasion overnight there should be plenty of time. I wouldn't even bother with presenting a token defence, because anything static would just get flattened by cruise missiles. And there's a chance that you could bluff the US into not daring to put men on the ground until they'd fixed and destroyed your troops in case you had a counter attack up your sleeve.

My prediction: US bombs and cruise missles the hell out of England for months and finally sweeps in for the kill, taking the island 2 months after the initial land invasion.
Thing is, yopu could toss god knows how mucha mmo at us and it wouldn't haev an effect. reamber Nazi germany spent 4 years trying to bomb the hell out of us and failed utterly. Bombing actually increased resistance. We still have all the same shelters ect. as we used to.

outcome: One, possibly two, decimated countries with thousands dead on both sides, a great number of civilian casualties, and two former allies now bitter enemies.

Sounds like a lose/lose situation to me.

Besides, Britain and America aren't ruled by unreasonable despots (and I know someone is going to think it funny to say that one or both of our chief executives are, but sarcasm is not wisdom in any case), so any conflict between our two nations would most likely be resolved peaceably. Unless of course there is a political revolution similar to the one that resulted in the formation of Nazi Germany, in either country, which I would think every sane individual prays will not happen.

But I agree with previous sentiments expressed, this thread is rather juvenile. There is enough ugliness and contention in this world already without people inventing things to quarrel about.

most of the world is sick of the US war mongering, so Britain would gain a considerable amount of allies and it i tink it would end in a stalemate but with parts of new england annexed.

United States wins within 6 months (assuming this is one on one, and both nations have their entire militaries at their disposal).

First the US Navy would blockade the Great Britain after a large naval battle, which is narrowly won by the US Navy, and the remainder of the Royal Navy disperses to the British Overseas Territories in the Atlantic. Then the USAF engages the RAF, and the Americans take control of the skies over Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and parts of England, (although the areas around London and Manchester, and the airspace in-between, stays in British control).

The American fleet off the coast of Britain then launches a barrage of Tomahawk cruise missiles at British coastal defences, SAM bateries, and important military installations. The Americans then commence an amphibious invasion of England with a landing of 20,000 American marines at Pevensey, and create a naval beachhead with the assistance of the Air Force and the Navy. Within 2 weeks, over 300,000 American soldiers are ashore, and the invsion of Great Britain commences. The American army moves north, and after a bloody 2 month battle in and around London, the city surrenders.

By this point, the Americans have landed over 500,000 soldiers in Great Britain, and are training over 500,000 more. While the American army is in battle around London, seperate armies are sent to take Northern Ireland (30,000 men), Scotland(100,000 men), and Wales(30,000 men). Northern Ireland falls easily, and the US government puts Sinn Fein in power, and in a landslide "election" Northern Ireland joins the Republic of Ireland. Wales is a bit harder to take, but within a month Wales falls to the American forces. The American campaign in Scotland gets off to a good start, with Edinburgh falling within 3 days of the invasion, and Perth and Dundee falling within a week, but it slowly bogs down into a Guerilla war, with the Guerillas based in Glasgow. American patrols only leave the cities in heavily-armored convoys, with air support to assist them.

During all of this, the Royal Navy harasses American shipping throughout the Atlantic, from their bases in the Carribean and the Atlantic. From their launching pads in the Carribean, the British launch an Amphibious invasion of Puerto Rico (10,000 men) and the U.S. Virgin Islands(3,000 men). The Virgin Islands fall within 3 days, but the war in Puerto Rico declines into a civil war between the pro-independece Puerto Ricans on the British side and the Pro-USA Puerto Ricans on the American side. After 2 months of fighting, the Americans send 20,000 freshly-trained troops to the island, and it tips the balance in favor of the Americans. After 3 months of fighting, the British pull back to the Virgin Islands and fortify them in case of an American invasion (which never comes).

Meanwhile, back in England, Manchester falls after a month of battle. Within the first 4 months of the invasion, 3/4ths of Great Britain has fallen to the Americans. Another 300,000 troops (all of them new recruits straight from boot-camp) arrive in the UK to take over control of the peaceful areas, while the more trained and experienced troops are sent north to Scotland. However, disaster strikes; it turns out that Prince Charles, heir to the throne, was killed in an American raid on a Guerilla outpost in Scotland. Hearing that the heir to the British throne is killed, the occupied Britons rise up against the Americans. The Americans manage to put down the uprising within a month, however it is very costly.

Strengthened by an extra 300,000 well-trained troops, the remaining 90,000 American soldiers in Scotland begin their final push. Within a month (the same month of the uprising in England), Glasgow has fallen, and within another month every last city in the UK has fallen to the Americans. In order to weaken Great Britain, the U.S. abolishes it, leading to Wales, Scotland, and England all becoming seperate, independent countries.

Of course, this is all hypothetical (and probably horribly wrong, since I'm just a guy with WAAAAAAY too much time on his hand), as well as impossible, since the UK is the US's strongest ally.

dunno how much history u know but the german invasion of stalingrad in ww2 took them 3 years and they left with their tail betwwen their legs.
any invasion of a well armed city would take years to win without total demolition. how ever many men u send into manchester/birmingham even leicester it would still take ages to take the city because the fighting locals know the area and would cream any invaders

this might not help Britain win but it would slow down the emerikans loads

dunno how much history u know but the german invasion of stalingrad in ww2 took them 3 years and they left with their tail betwwen their legs.


Stalingrad lasted from august 1942 to february 1943.

Fargozia']No two democracies have gone to war in 150 years? Excuse me- have you heard of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Two democracies, yes both countries had effective democracies at the time where at least a significant section of the population could carry out self determination.

The US Civil War could be counted as that too, depending on how you define a democracy.

Prussia was not a democracy in 1870. It was a monarchy (Kaiser Wilhelm I) in which the prime minister was appointed by the monarch. The Prussian liberals attempted to move the country toward democratic reforms in 1848, but were defeated by the conservative Junkers ruling class. At best Prussia could be said to have had some democratic elements, but was certainly not democratic. It is even difficult to refer to late 19th c. France as a democracy since Napoleon III had all the power and the people had almost no ability to exercise their rights and the legislative body had almost no authority.

To answer your question (have I heard of the Franco-Prussia War?) - yes. I teach European history for a living.

Prussia was not a democracy in 1870. It was a monarchy (Kaiser Wilhelm I) in which the prime minister was appointed by the monarch. The Prussian liberals attempted to move the country toward democratic reforms in 1848, but were defeated by the conservative Junkers ruling class. At best Prussia could be said to have had some democratic elements, but was certainly not democratic. It is even difficult to refer to late 19th c. France as a democracy since Napoleon III had all the power and the people had almost no ability to exercise their rights and the legislative body had almost no authority.

To answer your question (have I heard of the Franco-Prussia War?) - yes. I teach European history for a living.



LOL. I'd call that. . . . . . . . OWNED!!!!!!!!!

United States wins within 6 months (assuming this is one on one, and both nations have their entire militaries at their disposal).

...

Of course, this is all hypothetical (and probably horribly wrong, since I'm just a guy with WAAAAAAY too much time on his hand), as well as impossible, since the UK is the US's strongest ally.

Lovely piece of writing. Just to show what a lovely guy I am, I'm going to pick on the only typo I noticed in your tract. Or perhaps it was a little joke. I'm going to blow it out of all proportion.

You have WAAAAAAY to much time on your hand. I can't find the emoticon for it, so I'll just say that I'm giggling like a loon at that.

No, I liked it. Really. You've got your history right -- Scotland and Wales will be the trouble. You finessed Ireland beautifully too. And you correctly qualified the whole thing with "impossible." Me so horny. Me love you long time. :p

The U.K. has Madonna; the U.S. does not. I call that an overwhelming victory. What's more, it may be the sort of outcome that makes both sides happier and better off than before. The only thing which could spoil the amity between nations, in my view, would be if Britain tries to return Mrs. Ritchie to an America which neither needs nor wants her.

US would win...eventually.....sorta.

US would fire the first missile....hitting the chinese embassy (they're good at that).

The US military has a reputation for not being able to operate without roads and vehicles, so by the time they get to wales or scotland, they're screwed. (dating back at least as far as Korea - see Max hastings' book on the subject. Its very good) For a comparison with british forces, see any decent account of the falklands in 1982 (again max hastings) and the performance of the special forces, marines and paras, particularly 2nd para in very harsh conditions while being horribly under-supplied.

As for allies....if the US are going to invade the UK then who's next? That single question alone would bring allies. Not to mention NATO throwing their weight behind the attacked against the attacker. And bear in mind that the german army in 44 despite being badly outnumbered held the brits AND americans admirably until they were worn down by attrition to the point where the odds were overwhelmingly against them and they barely had enough troops to hold the line.

Naval - no contest.

Air power - same problem the Luftwaffe had. Range. Even if the european powers did not take sides, the US would be not be permitted to use european bases. Home field advantage. That leaves you with carriers - too vulnerable over the timescale it would require.

Oh and the US forces would lose more men to friendly fire than brits killed.

Tank tracks nicked in liverpool, no-go areas in mossside, geordieland, inner london, welsh and scots mountains, the whole of northern ireland.

And of course a reasonably-sized moslem population.

And you thought Iraq was hard to control.....

However.....why bother in the first place? The US already has total control over the UK government. Election please!

p.s. UK invading US? No chance.

p.p.s. If anyone could be said to have won WW2, its the soviet union. But not Stalin. Zhukov.

p.p.p.s. Welsh guards - admirable history in particularl Rorke's Drift (sp?). However the only criticism of them COULD come from their performance in the falklands where they were not up to moving across land. But given that they were coming off garrison/guard duty, were badly under-equipped, had no acclimatisaion etc etc etc, that was reasonable.

Ah. Bosnia-Herzogovina. I guess that's a bit controversial to tell your students was a war.
Well in fairness, that was much more along the lines of a federal-type state deconstructing into various constituent parts internally.

Ok this war already happened. twice, the the 1700's and again in 1812, and both times America won. Issue settled. thread over.

Learn history. The Red Army counter offensive got underway months before war was even declared between Germany and the USA.
I recommend you also take some time to learn as well
The Soviet counter-offensive began only a few days(December 5, 1941) to be exact) before Germany declared war on the US.

In an all-out, unrestrained total war, the US rapes Britain. Sorry, but it's much easier to grind an island to powder with ICBMs than to do the same with a signifigant chunk of a continent. As a matter of fact, the fallout from the glass crater would probably threaten the rest of Europe.

Now, if we're talking war as agreed-upon by civilized nations in recent memory, we could expect a longer conflict, with much more chance of survival for the UK (especially if we take into account troops involved in other conflicts)...you know, assuming that the US doesn't start supplying Irish nationalists with bigger guns than they've got now. (Ireland conquering Britain. Now there's a hypothetical...)

:) Somebody mentioned France joining in. Not only does the idea of France saving Britain from a foreign invasion strike me as supremely ironic, but the Simpsons have a good quote..."Lead us to victory?! We're French, we don't even have a word for victory!"

Ah. Bosnia-Herzogovina. I guess that's a bit controversial to tell your students was a war. Perhaps you stick to traditional definitions (war declared by governments.) Democracies saved no-one there. Panama. You're excused (you gotta earn a living, huh?)

I didn't say there were no wars fought by democracies in the past 150 years. I said there were no wars fought between two democracies in the past 150 years. Democracy has many problems, but it seems to be a general rule (I'm sure an exception will eventually pop up) that democracies don't declare war on each other.

Ok this war already happened. twice, the the 1700's and again in 1812, and both times America won. Issue settled. thread over.

the americans didnt win in 1812, read some earlier pages for the agrgument on it, it ended as a stalemate

the americans didnt win in 1812, read some earlier pages for the agrgument on it, it ended as a stalemate

New Orleans what?

who burnt down whos capital?

who burnt down whos capital?

then you ran like wee dogs.

and you had a burnt down capital

and you had a burnt down capital
And the reputation of having your president run like a wee dog, leaving his wife behind to collect the valuables. Still doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a victory. And it wasn't a second war for independence. It was a scrappy little side show that ended in stalemate.

snip
:) Somebody mentioned France joining in. Not only does the idea of France saving Britain from a foreign invasion strike me as supremely ironic, but the Simpsons have a good quote..."Lead us to victory?! We're French, we don't even have a word for victory!"

But in 1996 Britain and France signed a joint defence pact (mostly in airpower) due to the close proximity of our countries.

And the reputation of having your president run like a wee dog, leaving his wife behind to collect the valuables. Still doesn't change the fact that it wasn't a victory. And it wasn't a second war for independence. It was a scrappy little side show that ended in stalemate.

try telling barbaric tribes that

But in 1996 Britain and France signed a joint defence pact (mostly in airpower) due to the close proximity of our countries.

I was thinking more along the lines of that war where France was invaded by Germany, and then Britain and the US reclaimed the land for them...you know, the one where Germany installed a puppet government in Vichy (sp?) France?

Besides, just because it's likely to happen if the hypothetical comes into being doesn't mean it's any less ironic.

my head says it would probly end up as a stale mate.

UK would be froced on to the D by the larger (but less trained*) US Navy.

Then fight over in English water. The UK would win air power for I highly doubt the US can fit enough fighters on all there carriers to out number the entire british airforce and maritime airforce(plus the french according to Tetict.)

The two nations would be suck unable to attack each other. at this point it would be up to the UK to try to hurt the US miltary as much as possible to force the States to sue for peace before the US factories were fully moblized (about a year accoring to historic exmaple.)

Which would bring about the old status quo because the States needs the UK's empire of ports, and they don't want to pay for them.


my heart say the UK would flatten the US inside a week.

*not saying that the US has a poorly train Navy, but the UK trains there's beter.

Then fight over in English water. The UK would win air power for I highly doubt the US can fit enough fighters on all there carriers to out number the entire british airforce and maritime airforce(plus the french according to Tetict.)

I reckon the US would put a bit of diplomatic pressure on Iceland to base its planes there. They had a small force of planes there until very recently and I don't think it would take much to base a fairly sizeable force there.

The fact that this thread is actually debating whether or not America would win is the funniest thing I've seen on NS in a long time. Let's put it this way-

1. America has a higher population. This means more conscripts, if it came down to that. (Doubtful)

2. America has Army superiority over the UK. In fact, America has army superiority over all other countries except China. Also, not only are we better equipped- we have a far larger force.

3. America has Naval superiority.

4. America has Air superiority.

5. America has a larger industrial base, so in a prolonged war the US would win.



Now, excluding allies, the USA would win in less than a year, and conquer insurgency in two years or less, if we actually bothered to.

If the UK called upon their allies, then this would be a even fight, with the US gradually losing- unless the US called upon their allies, in which case America would win.

edit- Also, if the UK called upon only France, the USA would still crush them. If it called upon the entire EU, then the above is relevant.

Now, excluding allies, the USA would win in less than a year, and conquer insurgency in two years or less, if we actually bothered to.

It's not really as simple as 'conquering' insurgents though. A good insurgency will force you into commiting atrocities, especially if you're forced into sending in draftees. And the videos of these incidents will find their way to Europe, where there'll have a huge resonance, especially because outsiders will nearly always side with the oppressed people. And by then you'll be locked into an increasingly vicious guerilla campaign, where the air, naval, industrial, numerical superiorities don't really count for much, and if you try to crack down on the insurgency too hard then you risk tipping the rest of the world against you when you're in a perilous position to deal with it.

Conventionally, the U.S. would flatten the U.K. within 6 months, IMO. There's no real arguing to it. No matter how advanced warfighting is, numbers help you win. It's why China, who has all of 2 destroyers capable of touching U.S. Planes, could pose a big ass threat within the next 10 years.

I also think that for the U.K. to wage an insurgency would be really, really hard. The society over there is ANTI-GUN (not that that's a bad thing - i'm a Democrat,) so it's not like alot of people could fight. It's also an island - so protecting the borders would be really easy.

Of course, I WISH someone else in the world could pose a threat to America. Maybe then our politicians would act smarter.

As pointed out previously, each of these responses seems to take into account only the military capability of the two nations. Of course the U.S. is militarily stronger. No debate is needed on that questions (the U.S. military budget exceeds all the military budgets of the world combined).

However, is anyone factoring in the public opinion or popular support for this fictitious war? On paper the United States should have easily crushed Vietnam, but we all know how that turned out.

I have a difficult time imagining a scenario in which either population would support a war with the other. Therefore, the government and the military would find they had no political backing for this war.

Therefore, no victory for the U.S.

A US soildier one on one would get owned by a British regular.

In the Navy and Airforce you again have superiorty in numbers, and, in the navy, technology. Again though British troops are better trained

What is your evidence backing this up?

Longer training does not mean better training, and training does not mean effectiveness.

What is your evidence backing this up?
Weeeeeeeeeeeeell...
I think I've heard it said before, but it would make sense considerering there are much less troop to train

What is your evidence backing this up?

There's no proof; it's just blatant patriotism. The United States spends more money per soldier than Britain does, and it has more. Not to say British soldiers suck, but they aren't 100,000 better "One on one" doesn't really mean much anymore, since if you have one guy with a gun, and another guy with a gun, it's really just a matter of whether they both know how to shoot and aim it. If they do (like British and American troops do), then it's just a matter of who shoots first.

We have more troops to train.
We have more sergeants to train them, too.

One on one, unarmed, America > Britian
One on One, armed, America = Britian

Excluding special forces, obviously.

As far as an actual conventional war, the US would win hands down. The US has Air and sea superiority over every country on the planet, and its soldiers are better equiped and evenly trained as well. The US spends 446 Billion dollars on its military, while the next up (China) only spends 40 billion. Too many people here think that Britian has air superiority, that is false, the US has had to best equiped and best trained air force for the last 2 decades. Now with the stealth technology that the US has, it is hard to see the RAF being able to stand much fighting an invisible enemy. Fact is that in a conventional war, it has been shown that the US would defeat any foe on this planet. Now, as for insurgencies, hopefully the military has learned some lessons about insurgencies from Iraq, but arming insurgents in Britain would be much harder than in Iraq where arms dealers and rebels were in large quantity. Of course, Insurgencies and terrorists arent as military as political, it would be a case of winning the hearts and minds of Britons, which I doubt the US would have too much trouble doing. Of course, I highly doubt this would ever happen, Britain and the US are too close of allies to have a war against eachother.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeell...
I think I've heard it said before, but it would make sense considerering there are much less troop to train

It does make sense, but I need more evidence than what was presented to be convinced.

World War III. Then the end of the world probably. Grand Fanalii. Boom. US or Britain fires some nukes, the other side fires some back, other countires jump in, nuclear cloud comes and blocks out the sun. Cockroaches rule the world.

:rolleyes: Everyone would lose...as is the way with war:rolleyes:

You're out of your gourd. It basically ended as a stalemate, and the US won the last battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_New_Orleans) of the war. :p

The US invaded Canada / British North America and were pushed back which technically means you lost

Assuming America did the smart thing and carpet bombed most of Britian? The war would last about a week. A ground war, however, is going to take a great deal longer. For one, you have to land, which the royal navy could seriously impede. You also have to contend with the rest of the EU backing up their ally.

It does make sense, but I need more evidence than what was presented to be convinced.
Actually, I dunno, depnds on what you like, apparently, Americans use Maximum force, whereas European counterparts (Including Britain) use minimum force, which is seen as more efficient.

The fact that this thread is actually debating whether or not America would win is the funniest thing I've seen on NS in a long time. Let's put it this way-

1. America has a higher population. This means more conscripts, if it came down to that. (Doubtful)

2. America has Army superiority over the UK. In fact, America has army superiority over all other countries except China. Also, not only are we better equipped- we have a far larger force.

A numerical superiority, as I stated previously, In joint military exercises in the past 30/40 years America has LOST even when given numerical superiority of 3:1.

I would also question the better equipped claim. The mk2 SA-80 is an excellent weapon, made for this country, and repeatedly shown to be more accurate than any other general issue weapon in the world, even without it's superb SUSAT. Our Challenger2 tanks, are, in most expert opinion, at least as good as the M1 Abrams and mostly are already in this country.

3. America has Naval superiority.

4. America has Air superiority.

Once again, only numerical superiority. Actual physical, Naval and Air Superiority belongs to the Navy and Air-Force in situ. i.e The Royal Navy and The Royal Air-Force.

During WWII the Germans had massive numerical superiority over the RN and RAF. We held them off for quite a while before the US decided they needed a hand in the Pacific and the only way to get it was to help us out in Europe.

5. America has a larger industrial base, so in a prolonged war the US would win.

No doubt. However, you still have the difficulty of transporting troops, equipment and supplies 5,000 miles through potentially hostile waters and airspace. Fancy a journey?

Now, excluding allies, the USA would win in less than a year, and conquer insurgency in two years or less, if we actually bothered to.

If the UK called upon their allies, then this would be a even fight, with the US gradually losing- unless the US called upon their allies, in which case America would win.

edit- Also, if the UK called upon only France, the USA would still crush them. If it called upon the entire EU, then the above is relevant.

.....I think not. You'd need to have the most organised, co-ordinated and efficent transport operations in history. Also, to be certain of victory, you would need to land at least 4 times the number of troops available to the British Armed Forces (numbering 190,000 regular troops [of which 102,000 are regular army and 35,000 are TA] not counting those held in reserve, so roughly 600,000-800,000 troops). With a smaller, defensible island that is historically proven to be difficult to invade along with a much more rapid likely start to conscription (and if the object of the US is regime change we'd probably have developed a larger Military prior to this).

It would develop into a long, drawn out conflict, with increasing pressures at home for a withdrawal as the body-bags start to come home, and ultimately there would be a change at the top. Think the US could beat the UK in less than 4 years? or however long is left on the incumbent POTUS's term?

Once again, The USAF is superior in both numbers and technology to the RAF. The US navy is superior, but not by as much. In a conventional war, the US would indeed win in a matter of months if even that. Lets not forget that the US spends 446 billion dollars on its military while Britian spends under 30 Billion dollars, thus the US is better equiped for a war.

Sorry, to make this easier, I've paragraphed your post.

As far as an actual conventional war, the US would win hands down. The US has Air and sea superiority over every country on the planet, and its soldiers are better equiped and evenly trained as well.

The US spends 446 Billion dollars on its military, while the next up (China) only spends 40 billion.

Too many people here think that Britian has air superiority, that is false, the US has had to best equiped and best trained air force for the last 2 decades.

Now with the stealth technology that the US has, it is hard to see the RAF being able to stand much fighting an invisible enemy.

Fact is that in a conventional war, it has been shown that the US would defeat any foe on this planet.

Now, as for insurgencies, hopefully the military has learned some lessons about insurgencies from Iraq, but arming insurgents in Britain would be much harder than in Iraq where arms dealers and rebels were in large quantity.

Of course, Insurgencies and terrorists arent as military as political, it would be a case of winning the hearts and minds of Britons, which I doubt the US would have too much trouble doing.

Of course, I highly doubt this would ever happen, Britain and the US are too close of allies to have a war against eachother.

1. see my earlier post.

2. The UK has the 3rd highest military expenditure in the world, despite only having the 27th highest number of troops

3. VERY questionable. The The RAF can normally outfly the best USAF pilots. We do not have a hard-deck in training. We also have access to our mothballed fleets of HarrierII Jump Jets that can be flying in limited numbers in days and in total within weeks. These are some of the best flying aircraft in the world. They can do things that no other fighter plane currently in use can.

4. What makes you think stealth aircraft are invisible? We have the radar that picks those up, thanks. I personally know one of the guys who developed that technology in the US. The US shared that technology with the UK 14 years ago. I have seen the files and the equipment.

5. Shown where exactly?

6. Wrong. The UK has massive stores of arms spread throughout the country. We also have a large number of arms dealers. We supply much of the free world, including the US, with weapons and equipment.

6. You think that if you invade the land of a highly patriotic and independent nation (where the consideration of leaving the EU is held in high regard by many) that winning hearts and minds would be easy?

7. Agreed.

And to add, what do you think the reaction of the British Armed Forces would be upon declaration of war or intent by the US would be?

We would invade sovereign US land and take your bases in the UK off you, capturing your equipment and troops. First Blood - UK.

We would recall the majority of our troops from Europe and farther afield, bolstering our defences. (Units in Germany, for example are kept on rotation for 24 hour movement as a matter of course. Other units available for return within a week. 3 or 4 thousand nautical miles is a long way to get in that time at a maximum speed of 50 knots by the Littoral Surface Craft, and slower for larger craft.

The US invaded Canada / British North America and were pushed back which technically means you lost

I though it was US that invaded first and got beaten Canadian Militia and Mohawks so really it was draw as the borders ended up to where they where before the conflict

as for a an invasion of Britian we would just reflood East of England let the American forces handle having to handle the flooded fens and marshes and get the the amercians to call lincolnshire folk yorkies and see what would happen

Prussia was not a democracy in 1870. It was a monarchy (Kaiser Wilhelm I) in which the prime minister was appointed by the monarch. The Prussian liberals attempted to move the country toward democratic reforms in 1848, but were defeated by the conservative Junkers ruling class. At best Prussia could be said to have had some democratic elements, but was certainly not democratic. It is even difficult to refer to late 19th c. France as a democracy since Napoleon III had all the power and the people had almost no ability to exercise their rights and the legislative body had almost no authority.

To answer your question (have I heard of the Franco-Prussia War?) - yes. I teach European history for a living.

By the standards of the time, it was a democracy. Remember not to make the mistake of applyimg modern moral and social standards to a historical situation. ;)

US would win...eventually.....sorta.



p.p.p.s. Welsh guards - admirable history in particularl Rorke's Drift (sp?). However the only criticism of them COULD come from their performance in the falklands where they were not up to moving across land. But given that they were coming off garrison/guard duty, were badly under-equipped, had no acclimatisaion etc etc etc, that was reasonable.

No, Rorkes Drift was a detachment from the 2nd Battalion 24th Foot, The South Wales Borderers, now part of The Royal Regiment of Wales. I had to know this as Commisariat H Dalton VC was of the Commisariat Corps which was one of the preceding Units for the Royal Army Ordnance Corps which was subsumed into the Royal Logistic Corps, the latter two I served in.

I think that it would end up with the island of great britain a war-torn country where crazy people eat their own brains. And pretty much all of Britains cultural integrity would deisapear.

As far as I have seen, the three top military spenders are the US, China, and Russia. the US military owns 48% of the world's military budget. If at war, the RAF bases and airstrips would be subject to nighttime attacks by nighthawks and missile attacks, thus many of their fighters would be put out of order. The US has never shared stealth equipment with Britian, the US planned to, but it decided not to, thus British scientist working on the joint stealth fighter were upset. So far, the USAF's F-22 Raptor is the most agile and technologically advanced jet ever. Witht the Future Warrior programs coming in before 2012, the US army will be given a breath of fresh air with the new soldier systems as well as new vehicles to replace the humvee. Before a true declaration of war, special forces would already be carrying out operations around and even in Britain. Britian's communications would be targets first by Apache Helocopters and tommahawk missiles, than bombing would start on actual bases. It is insane to say that in a conventional war, Britian could stand up to the world's only superpower...Even if the EU decided to intervene on the side of Britain, they would have a hard time if America decided to open up an alliance with China, and use its military buddy, Isreal to open up seperate fronts all over the world.

What is your evidence backing this up?

Longer training does not mean better training, and training does not mean effectiveness.

Try wargames. We, the British, sent reservists (TA, our equivelant to the National Guard) against US infantry troops in FIBUA exercises. (Fighting In Built Up Areas.) Guess who won hands down on both attack and defence? (Hint: It wasn't the US regular Infantry troops. :p)

Better tactical doctrine and better training.

As far as I have seen, the three top military spenders are the US, China, and Russia. the US military owns 48% of the world's military budget. If at war, the RAF bases and airstrips would be subject to nighttime attacks by nighthawks and missile attacks, thus many of their fighters would be put out of order. The US has never shared stealth equipment with Britian, the US planned to, but it decided not to, thus British scientist working on the joint stealth fighter were upset. So far, the USAF's F-22 Raptor is the most agile and technologically advanced jet ever. Witht the Future Warrior programs coming in before 2012, the US army will be given a breath of fresh air with the new soldier systems as well as new vehicles to replace the humvee. Before a true declaration of war, special forces would already be carrying out operations around and even in Britain. Britian's communications would be targets first by Apache Helocopters and tommahawk missiles, than bombing would start on actual bases. It is insane to say that in a conventional war, Britian could stand up to the world's only superpower...Even if the EU decided to intervene on the side of Britain, they would have a hard time if America decided to open up an alliance with China, and use its military buddy, Isreal to open up seperate fronts all over the world.


Thank You.
Laura Beach, you have just raised your post count by flaming bullshit into this thread. You said about three things that were true, and one of those was your username. Should the US ally with China, the combined forces would be enough to topple most of the world- and some countries would join in the alliance, making world-dominion a much easier goal.

Should they have a permanent alliance, with the US giving China their technology, the alliance could concievably conquer the world, although insurgency and rebellions would be common- but why hesitate to use brute force when all other countries are against you anyways?

Russia would probably be invited into this alliance, and if it wasn't then it would concievably be one of the only things capable of stopping the US/China alliance.

The development of the Eurofighter, which will be complete in 2010, would slow down the invasion of the US into Britain, but ultimately in today's terms the US would win, hands-down.

As far as I have seen, the three top military spenders are the US, China, and Russia. the US military owns 48% of the world's military budget. If at war, the RAF bases and airstrips would be subject to nighttime attacks by nighthawks and missile attacks, thus many of their fighters would be put out of order. The US has never shared stealth equipment with Britian, the US planned to, but it decided not to, thus British scientist working on the joint stealth fighter were upset. So far, the USAF's F-22 Raptor is the most agile and technologically advanced jet ever. Witht the Future Warrior programs coming in before 2012, the US army will be given a breath of fresh air with the new soldier systems as well as new vehicles to replace the humvee. Before a true declaration of war, special forces would already be carrying out operations around and even in Britain. Britian's communications would be targets first by Apache Helocopters and tommahawk missiles, than bombing would start on actual bases. It is insane to say that in a conventional war, Britian could stand up to the world's only superpower...Even if the EU decided to intervene on the side of Britain, they would have a hard time if America decided to open up an alliance with China, and use its military buddy, Isreal to open up seperate fronts all over the world.

NATO countries:

Military Budgeting in thousands of millions (billions if you must) of USD

United States of America 329.00
United Kingdom 38.40
France 29.50
Germany 24.90
Italy 19.40
Spain 8.40
Canada 7.40
Netherlands 6.60
Turkey 5.80
Norway 3.80
Greece 3.50
Poland 3.50
Belgium 2.53
Denmark 2.40
Czech Republic 1.62
Portugal 1.30
Romania 1.15
Hungary 1.08
Slovakia 0.45
Bulgaria 0.43
Slovenia 0.31
Lithuania 0.23
Luxembourg 0.18
Estonia 0.13
Latvia 0.12
Iceland 0.03




Japan spent US $46.9 thousand million (billion) (2nd*) on military resources in 2003, The People's Republic of China, US$ 32.8 thousand million (billion) (4th*), Russia, US $13 thousand million (billion) (8th*)

*On that list.

Seperate fronts? The question is one of The US invading The UK.

PRC joining an alliance with US? why would they? they already own a massive part of your debt. Why would the largest Communist country in the world join a military alliance with the US? They would look at what the US is doing and start to wonder where this greedy nation is going to start to cast it's eye next.

NATO countries:

Military Budgeting in thousands of millions (billions if you must) of USD

United States of America 329.00
United Kingdom 38.40
France 29.50
Germany 24.90
Italy 19.40
Spain 8.40
Canada 7.40
Netherlands 6.60
Turkey 5.80
Norway 3.80
Greece 3.50
Poland 3.50
Belgium 2.53
Denmark 2.40
Czech Republic 1.62
Portugal 1.30
Romania 1.15
Hungary 1.08
Slovakia 0.45
Bulgaria 0.43
Slovenia 0.31
Lithuania 0.23
Luxembourg 0.18
Estonia 0.13
Latvia 0.12
Iceland 0.03




Japan spent US $46.9 thousand million (billion) (2nd*) on military resources in 2003, The People's Republic of China, US$ 32.8 thousand million (billion) (4th*), Russia, US $13 thousand million (billion) (8th*)

*On that list.



Would you be so kind as to dig up how many soldiers China, Britian, the US, and any other EU nation you'd like, have?

Should they have a permanent alliance, with the US giving China their technology, the alliance could concievably conquer the world, although insurgency and rebellions would be common- but why hesitate to use brute force when all other countries are against you anyways?

You realise that if you give China your technology then they can take over you?

How many do you want? I have a list of 127 countries in front of me, my posts are getting kinda long.

Top 30 do?

*coughALLIANCEcough*
You know, if they did that, we could switch sides. And then China would be doomed, because we'd be a decisive factor.

ACtually Laura, those are old figures for military spending.

the 2005 military spending was
Billions of Dollars

US- 420.7
China- 62.5
Russia- 61.9
Uk- 51.1
Japan- 44.7
France- 41.6

This is a bit silly. Why would two countries who are each others closest allies, and been allies for nearly a century fight each other?

*coughALLIANCEcough*
You know, if they did that, we could switch sides. And then China would be doomed, because we'd be a decisive factor.
You're going to take over China? Do you have any idea how big it is?

How many do you want? I have a list of 127 countries in front of me, my posts are getting kinda long.

Top 30 do?

Why don't you consult my thread, where I asked for the US, China, UK, and any EU country you liked?




Yossarian- read the post. Why the hell would we take over China? If they backstabbed us, then you know I'm fairly confident the rest of the world and the damaged US could take over China, yes.

You realise that if you give China your technology then they can take over you?
They don't have the ability to get the troops over here.

They don't have the ability to get the troops over here.
Well they don't have the ability to really threaten Europe either, but that hasn't stopped anyone speculating.

They don't have the ability to get the troops over here.

Yet.

*shifty eyes*

Really, though, China has the possibility to be a threat to the United States within 20 years. They're already building up their navy, and while the current navy couldn't transport an army past Japan, they're making it so that it could eventually cross the Pacific. Not to say China isn't a threat right now (they could send ICBM's to hit the American coast, and their army could overwhelm Americas allies in the region, as long as they could get on shore), but they aren't exactly IMPENDING DOOM. However, a war between the U.S. and China is almost as impossible as one between the US and the UK; China needs the US, we need China. So it'll probably stay a love-hate relationship, with the worst being a few skirmishes over Taiwan.

Yossarian- read the post. Why the hell would we take over China? If they backstabbed us, then you know I'm fairly confident the rest of the world and the damaged US could take over China, yes.
What rest of the world? You were arming China to take over Europe. I'm sure Russia wouldn't want a Chinese/US controlled Europe, and there's a lot of Anti-Americanism in South America. If China decide to take the technology you give them but not follow you then you're pretty stuffed.

Fargozia']By the standards of the time, it was a democracy. Remember not to make the mistake of applyimg modern moral and social standards to a historical situation. ;)

I'm sorry, but that is not true. Neither by the standards of the time, nor by simple definition. Also, democracy is a political system, not a social, nor moral one.

I've been looking (very loosely) at the whole issue of the US invading Britain, and the way that they might manage it. As with others, i agree that Welsh landing (notwithstanding Ireland being 'in the way', if not involved, for all landing areas through the St. George's Channel, leaving moving up the Bristol Channel and South Wales/The Valleys to contend with) is unlikely.

Cornwall/Devon (perhaps combined with South Wales bridgehead) is certainly the most 'exposed' (and uninterfered-with, by European neighbours) part of England, but while potentially decent (lots of coastline) for getting troops into the peninsula, you then have the bottle-neck in getting them out. Without plastering the entire coast, Severn round to Solent with suppressive mechanisms (naval bombardment, cruise missiles, raw numbers of grunts) the UK forces could run interference from Bournemouth to Bristol, a strip that is easily within yomping range of Salisbury and associated military training areas, not forgetting the troops having been freshyl trained/refreshed in the Dartmoor and Exmoor areas themselves.

Scotland, well, that's bottleneck heaven...

With the support, casual assistance or (at a stretch) indiference of Europe, mass landing of troops so as to take London would have to be in the South East and/or East Anglia. Brighton round to Ipswitch, say, avoiding the famous cliffs and the remaining marshes (though hovercraft landing forces could be used at the difficult non-vertical points).

And, of course, most of the existing American bases are concentrated in East Anglia... In the run up to a (pre-planned, and covertly organised) invasion of the UK, the cycling of personnel through those (and other) bases could be subtly biased towards more troops in than out, squeezing as many incoming troops and supplies into planes as possible, double/triple-bunking the troops and utilising all available space with as much secrecy as possible (i.e. no sudden building of new barracks, though maybe squash courts and gymnasiums could be equipped with bunks, not sports equipment)... Though I really don't expect any significant increases in staffing to go unnoticed or avoid being innocently remarked-upon by anyone not knowing why this was going on. (Maybe the utility companies would tip off GCHQ about the increased fuel bills and phone-calls home... ;))

But equipment. Obvious equipment, like the planes they'd need. Difficult to do covertly.


No, most of the invasion forces would have to occur after the official start of hostilities, so that's back to the amphibian landing forces after first-strike by cruise missiles and maybe a few simultaneous 'accidental' bombing runs by aircraft on 'manoevers' while the resident US troops spread out fm their bases to gain territory and present a more diffused target.

Main centres and deployment areas of UK troops could be taken out/disrupted by (conventionally armed) cruise-missiles, and it's possible that most of the strategicsly-available airstrips (lessee, 334 with paved runways, according to the CIA) could be hit, but I recon we have contingency plans for impromptu strips (I know that some stretches of roads are available as emergency landing strips, and while not a scratch on the JSF, never understimate the power of the Harrier) and mobilisation of TA units (maybe 'weekend warriors', but given top-class training for all that) could bring us up to fighting strengh, assuming the lines of command aren't overly disrupted.


I don't have much knowledge of British naval forces, but I suspect it'd be difficult to get too many troop-carriers out into mid-Atlantic plus a training excercise of a battle-group (being engaged in a training excercise with the royal Navy, would be an intersting method, switching to live-fire at the moment of denouement before steaming over to complete the suppression the missile-hit naval yards at Portsmouth/wherever),

Transatlantic air armadas from the US would be a logistical nightmare, especially without guarantee of safe landing areas (for both fighting/bombing aircraft shipped over for combat and supression and the troop/munitions/equipment/fuel-transporters) also pretty much needed to support the surprise attack) and while maybe not at full effectiveness (see above about airstrips) the RAF would buzz them and disrupt their landing grounds, 'striped' with whatever seabourne and land-based surface-to-air defences we could muster to harrass them further. i.e. don't forget that the UK already have a lot of troops in place (not all of which could be wiped out in 'war-by-pushbutton') whereas the US has to get troops across the pond or from elsewhere (and if each were still sharing common fields-of-combat outside the UK, there'd be a lot of tying-down-of-each-other as soon as the declaration of war occured).


It just occured to me that European (e.g. German) US bases could be 'canibalised' for more localised invasion forces. Again, preparations could be made to build up the personnel numbers there, but may have even more difficulty as the Russian Federation the old Soviet Block (who surely still have an interest/paranois in such things) start to make enquiring/concerned/worried/threatening noises about these turns of events, even if the UK is blindsided about the localised buildups.


Actually, I've been making a lot of assumptions that there's a covert but imperatively-driven reason for the US to stage an attack on the UK, here. If it's a deterioration of political relationships, there'd probably be pressures upon the US to withdraw/thin-out its troops on Airstrip One as it passed through a "you're no longer welcome here" situation on the way to the "standby to repel boarders!" situation. And with that situation, a lot of reserve plans could be initiated, even drawing upon the many 'counter-hypotheticals' that the various branches of government and military must surely have stored away in filing cabinets.




So, with all that as a setup, I'm going with the assumption that the immediate-term successes of the US are going to be devastating (assuming a surprise attack), but once the short-term victories are over, it's going to be a pain for the US to continue their momentum with anything other than push-button attacks... It's then up in the air (literally or otherwise) what happens next, and depends on who prevails, and what kind of situation in the air (air-dominence, air-superioirity or aitr-supremacy, and by who) and over the marine approaches (ditto), plus what types and concentrations of forces are still around from both sides and even then, the political and social wills of the respective peoples and the various alliances-of-the-era among the international communities watching on the wings. And I'm guessing that the theoretical uphevals that initiate such a manifestly unlikely situation are going to have changed the dynamics of most of the variables involved at this point (if not the make-up of the two main protagonists' military forces and dispositions... Like a Dark Angel-style fall of the US, or a V For Vendetta-style shift in the political environment of the UK).


And it also presupposes no "glassing" of the UK beyond the use of the US or UK alike, or any Castro-esque assasination plots against whatever UK leader has caused the US the grief they are trying to right.



(Hmm, it has occured that, in the couple of hours I've taken to write this, edit it, cut it, expand it and totally make a mess of explaining my reasoning, someone has made similar points to me.)

What rest of the world? You were arming China to take over Europe. I'm sure Russia wouldn't want a Chinese/US controlled Europe, and there's a lot of Anti-Americanism in South America. If China decide to take the technology you give them but not follow you then you're pretty stuffed.

What the hell? I said if America and China allied in WWIII, and China backstabbed America, then America could fight against China and with the rest of the world win.

ACtually Laura, those are old figures for military spending.

the 2005 military spending was
Billions of Dollars

US- 420.7
China- 62.5
Russia- 61.9
Uk- 51.1
Japan- 44.7
France- 41.6

You are correct, almost. Those were old figures. I apologise. My source included this detail at the end of his information. he did send me the information of where to get the latest information though.

From sipri (http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html) the agency that monitors world military spending:

The process of concentration of military expenditure continued in 2005 with a decreasing number of countries responsible for a growing proportion of spending: the 15 countries with the highest spending now account for 84 per cent of the total. The USA is responsible for 48 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5 per cent each.

This translates to give their latest table:

1. USA 478.2
2. UK 48.2
3. France 46.2
4. Japan 42.1
5. PRC 42

6. Germany 33.2
7. Italy 27.2
8. Saudi Arabia 25.2
9. Russia 21
10. India 20.4

What the hell? I said if America and China allied in WWIII, and China backstabbed America, then America could fight against China and with the rest of the world win.
I might be a bit confused but you seemed to introduce China in response to SecularJAVA's post which stuck to the OP's scenario of a US invasion of Britain drawing in the EU, and the US balancing with Israel and China. Who is what side in your scenario?

Java, where'd you get your source?


And besides, Laura, the US has nearly ten times the UK spending.

Well I wouldn’t favour Britain’s odds. Although we have the best trained armed forces in the world we have no where near the numbers of troops that the United States has, but If there was a war between Britain and the US, the US would take heavy losses in the in the country side and Highlands due to heavy guerrilla attacks, although if all major cities are taken the RN might launch Tridents against US cities as a last resort.

I might be a bit confused but you seemed to introduce China in response to SecularJAVA's post which stuck to the OP's scenario of a US invasion of Britain drawing in the EU, and the US balancing with Israel and China. Who is what side in your scenario?

I mean that China and the US together could start a world war, and with shared technology possibly win the war.

Well I wouldn’t favour Britain’s odds. Although we have the best trained armed forces in the world we have no where near the numbers of troops that the United States has, but If there was a war between Britain and the US, the US would take heavy losses in the in the country side and Highlands due to heavy guerrilla attacks, although if all major cities are taken the RN might launch Tridents against US cities as a last resort.


They launch missiles, we launch missiles.

We have more missiles.

Sorry for the double post.

So I'm aware that my past threads have been remarkably spurious, but this one is moderately less so. Relatively, I guess.

Anyway, I remember seeing this topic on another forum a few years ago and wonder what posters here would make of it. The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change. IIRC, the thread ended with a rather general consensus that should the British manage to focus the American forces on London, wage an urban war and conscript both men and women, then they may inflict enough damage on the American ground troops to force a stalemate. Much discussion was also given over to Air force vs Air force, placing of AA in the cities, status of refugees, use of WMD's (!) etc etc.

So yes. Be as brief as you like or as long-winded as you can, I reckon. How would the war turn out?

triple a is pretty much so old school it is laughable...maybe for an old school fight it is adequate..like saddam thought..lol(in gulf war 1)
american power projection comes from it's ability to stand off and not risk people in any air war scenarios.
only the unfortunate souls on the recieving end get hurt.(cruise missiles,ship launched missiles,hell even high altitude dropped smart bombs from stealth fighters)pretty much insures any aaa batteries are obliterated with out much risk to the us military personel.

that out of the way...the us would never fight the uk..period...they are our brothers,we may get pissed at you,and you pissed at us,like brothers..but attacking the uk...never!

to indulge this hypothetical scenario...the us would basically obliterate your command and control facilities,and seeing as the uk is pretty much like our coldwar adversaries,your urban based.like us.
your industrial base would be destroyed,your ability to project power would be destroyed,so you would be left with bands of irregulars.
the uk is an island...
we could just park carrier groups and subs off the island and choke it without setting foot on it.

i wont hypothesise about how the population would react,i know the brits are strong willed...but like they say about torture...you can only hold on so long.

if the uk's c and c was smashed,the infrastructure smashed,power projection smashed,industry smashed...hate to say it...all it would take would be a blockcade until you cried uncle.

like your big brother gettin you in a full nelson...you got to give or you black out.

this is of coarse excluding nukes.

the uk is like the us in many ways...but the problem is,as far as conflict scenarios go is...the us can self sustain,project massive firepower,and buy time...the uk cannot.

that said..no american soldier would ever intentionally attack anyone from briton,unless attacked,and even then...like my older brother did to me on many occasions..said..you give?
the neighbor he would have choked into unconciousness,but me..a modicum of mercy..lol

again...this is a no nuke scenario...and i hope we all know how a nuke scenario would turn out.

i say .....peace my brother...stop the hatin..lol

I got my table from globalsecurity, and China spends more than that table says, becuase their large increase in spending is what shifted the US to focus in the Pacific, and Russia has always spent the second largest amount, since the Cold War...laura's table is wrong...

triple a is pretty much so old school it is laughable...maybe for an old school fight it is adequate..like saddam thought..lol(in gulf war 1)
american power projection comes from it's ability to stand off and not risk people in any air war scenarios.
only the unfortunate souls on the recieving end get hurt.(cruise missiles,ship launched missiles,hell even high altitude dropped smart bombs from stealth fighters)pretty much insures any aaa batteries are obliterated with out much risk to the us military personel.

that out of the way...the us would never fight the uk..period...they are our brothers,we may get pissed at you,and you pissed at us,like brothers..but attacking the uk...never!

to indulge this hypothetical scenario...the us would basically obliterate your command and control facilities,and seeing as the uk is pretty much like our coldwar adversaries,your urban based.like us.
your industrial base would be destroyed,your ability to project power would be destroyed,so you would be left with bands of irregulars.
the uk is an island...
we could just park carrier groups and subs off the island and choke it without setting foot on it.

i wont hypothesise about how the population would react,i know the brits are strong willed...but like they say about torture...you can only hold on so long.

if the uk's c and c was smashed,the infrastructure smashed,power projection smashed,industry smashed...hate to say it...all it would take would be a blockcade until you cried uncle.

like your big brother gettin you in a full nelson...you got to give or you black out.

this is of coarse excluding nukes.

the uk is like the us in many ways...but the problem is,as far as conflict scenarios go is...the us can self sustain,project massive firepower,and buy time...the uk cannot.

that said..no american soldier would ever intentionally attack anyone from briton,unless attacked,and even then...like my older brother did to me on many occasions..said..you give?
the neighbor he would have choked into unconciousness,but me..a modicum of mercy..lol

again...this is a no nuke scenario...and i hope we all know how a nuke scenario would turn out.

i say .....peace my brother...stop the hatin..lol




Except the grammar, this is pretty much the exact true thing.

SecularJAVA, I think your table is right anyway.

agreed!

"My" table is not my table. It is from a named, and linked source. That source is SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), an internationally recognised and accessible group with unparalled access to governments world wide.

Except the grammar, this is pretty much the exact true thing.

SecularJAVA, I think your table is right anyway.


what da hell is awry with my grammer..i gots good brungings up..hell i was edumacated at a catholic school...were you learned or got beat.

sorry for being a wise ass...i hate typing....did i mention i hate typing?:)

And did they teach you that god made the world in seven days?

Saying that you have bad grammar is no insult to your parents or their way of raising you, I'm just stating a fact. If you're not very good at typing, then that is an explanation.

"My" table is not my table. It is from a named, and linked source. That source is SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), an internationally recognised and accessible group with unparalled access to governments world wide.

But, that table disagrees with every other source I can find, not to mention it disagrees with even press reports published by those countries. I KNOW that Russia is second in spending, but China surpassed them this year with a jump of 14% in spending, now Britian is most likely after China and Russia, which would put it at 4th.

If SecularJAVA has multiple agreeing sources, then I suspect he might be right, Laura.

And did they teach you that god made the world in seven days?

Saying that you have bad grammar is no insult to your parents or their way of raising you, I'm just stating a fact. If you're not very good at typing, then that is an explanation.

i take no offence at anything pretty much...lol

and i do hate typing,but are you a proper brit?

i re read my post,and other then the run on sentences..i see no grammitical errors..lol

sorry for the lol"s..just trying to put you at ease that i am not offended..i know lol's are annoying,but really..i'll let you school me some..as i fucked off in english class because my teacher had this white foamy thing in the corner of his mouth and it drove me batty..and i could not learn as i was fixated on this white froth on his mouth!

truly baffled me why he did not just wipe his mouth on his sleave?

please school me,i am kinda good at spelling,but really lazy with punctuation..ergo my "f" in english..and i am a english speaker..which also baffles me...how can i fail english when i speak it..yet pass spanish and i dont?

ahhh.the mysteries of the world elude me.

oh...the god thing..i was an alter boy...til i stole some body of christ things(eucharist?) and sold them in the parking lot for a nickel...then i was kicked out after 7 years of frankensense and muir.

i take no offence at anything pretty much...lol

and i do hate typing,but are you a proper brit?

i re read my post,and other then the run on sentences..i see no grammitical errors..lol

sorry for the lol"s..just trying to put you at ease that i am not offended..i know lol's are annoying,but really..i'll let you school me some..as i fucked off in english class because my teacher had this white foamy thing in the corner of his mouth and it drove me batty..and i could not learn as i was fixated on this white froth on his mouth!

truly baffled me why he did not just wipe his mouth on his sleave?

please school me,i am kinda good at spelling,but really lazy with punctuation..ergo my "f" in english..and i am a english speaker..which also baffles me...how can i fail english when i speak it..yet pass spanish and i dont?

ahhh.the mysteries of the world elude me.


I am Swiss, not british.

And we both got Fs in English.... although I got mine for pissing off the teacher by not doing my homework, while maintaining an A+ average on tests.

But hey man, who really cares about english class? Most useless one in the curriculum if you ask me.

I am Swiss, not british.

And we both got Fs in English.... although I got mine for pissing off the teacher by not doing my homework, while maintaining an A+ average on tests.

But hey man, who really cares about english class? Most useless one in the curriculum if you ask me.

i concur....

wow...i feel like stupid for not knowing my native tongue,and have to be corrected by a swiss person.

i love you swiss..well i actually love everyone...but why the hell do they make you learn english?

i wish i paid attention in spanish class...you no..other then learning how to say/hear my name.

did you have too?

or was it an elective?
we had too...not that i minded,senora esteva was hot!

you still have not pointed out my grammitical errors,but you dont need to bother,i believe you..just would be nice to find out how truly feeble i am...at my own language.

can you tell me some words in swiss?or short greetings.

isn't swiss kinda like german?please dont laugh,i am serious.

i would be forever in your debt/favor
thanks

i concur....

wow...i feel like stupid for not knowing my native tongue,and have to be corrected by a swiss person.

i love you swiss..well i actually love everyone...but why the hell do they make you learn english?

It's a requirement in school. English is the most international language, isn't it?

i wish i paid attention in spanish class...you no..other then learning how to say/hear my name.

did you have too?

I didn't take spanish class. The four 'official' Swiss languages are Italian, German, French, and Romansh. No need to take spanish on top of that.

or was it an elective?
we had too...not that i minded,senora esteva was hot!

Other languages apart from English were electives, yes.

you still have not pointed out my grammitical errors,but you dont need to bother,i believe you..just would be nice to find out how truly feeble i am...at my own language.

I'll quote your post and correct them, if you'd like.

can you tell me some words in swiss?or short greetings.

I live in the canton (think state) of Ticino, and so I speak Italian. I speak English just because I'm required to in school and it's a bit of a hobby for me. After all, should I be a stockbroker or just a general businessman- I'll need english.

Io sono da la conton di Ticin, e parlo Italiano. Parlo Englese perche devo nella scuola and anche volio. Se volio essere un 'stockbroker' o fare cose de business, lo devo parlare.

isn't swiss kinda like german?please dont laugh,i am serious.

There is no language called Swiss, but german is a Swiss language.

i would be forever in your debt/favor
thanks

No problem.

what da hell is awry with my grammer..i gots good brungings up..hell i was edumacated at a catholic school...were you learned or got beat.

sorry for being a wise ass...i hate typing....did i mention i hate typing?:)

What the hell is wrong with my grammar? I was raised well, hell I was educated at a catholic school, where you had to learn or else they would beat you.

In the first one, replace every .. with a , and space and you're pretty much fine.

edit- Yes, I know you were being sarcastic. I thought I would be sarcastic and take you at your word.

No problem.

your really nice..thanks for the interaction.

if i remember my geography,switzerland borders the french/italian alps...no?

my dad's family was from milan,which i believe was in or near the italian alps.

i am truly jealous..you live near that beauty...wow..good for you.

and yes..please point out my error's i would be amused and educated.

if it is not a bother...i would love to be corrected by a swiss about my english..my mum would be mortified..

you seem very nice,so let me say,thanks for the interaction.i really like meeting people of differing backgrounds and opinions...and i always like to learn how to speak my native tongue(no sarcasm) correctly.

like i said(well i left out the whole stoned thing..hehe)i did not pay attention much.

and can you tell me how to say hello and a few other things in swiss/german?

thanks..your friend...dave

America > UK. Always.

America > UK. Always.

That is the type of Nationalistic crap that too many people display today, if you are going to say something like that, provide facts or even an explanation for something so ignorant...

... To me England is just another big-assed American state.. like Texas, or Canada....
lol
but honestly I live in the states, and HATE IT but this country would definitely destroy that lil island, considering you don't control the old commonwealth anymore.....

... To me England is just another big-assed American state.. like Texas, or Canada....
lol
but honestly I live in the states, and HATE IT but this country would definitely destroy that lil island, considering you don't control the old commonwealth anymore.....

The Empire shall rise again!!!

(if the south can, why cant britain)

What the hell is wrong with my grammar? I was raised well, hell I was educated at a catholic school, where you had to learn or else they would beat you.

In the first one, replace every .. with a , and space and you're pretty much fine.


that was me being funny ..i think you missed my point.

i meant my original post,that was just me being a wise ass,i would love to be red penned by an english teacher....then again..i like being red penned by anyone.

your really nice..thanks for the interaction.

If I'm really nice, then America must be very cynical. I'm not *that* nice. But I appreciate the compliment.

if i remember my geography,switzerland borders the french/italian alps...no?

http://www.hotels-travel-map.com/Europe.gif

my dad's family was from milan,which i believe was in or near the italian alps.

Cool. Why didn't you stay there?

i am truly jealous..you live near that beauty...wow..good for you.

Thank you. And yes, It is very beautiful.

and yes..please point out my error's i would be amused and educated.

Just the ones above this comment-
your really nice..thanks for the interaction.
Capitalized the Y, added an e and apostrophe to the your.
Really is a guarantee- very is a superlative.
.. replaced by [comma, space]

if i remember my geography,switzerland borders the french/italian alps...no?
Capitalize the I in if, capitalize the I in I, put a space after the comma, capitalize the S in Switzerland, capitalize the F in French and I in Italian, take out the ... and replace it with a period, replace no? with Correct?

my dad's family was from milan,which i believe was in or near the italian alps.
Capitalize the M in my, remove the apostrophe in dad's and replace it with an apostrophe at the end (dads'), capitalize the M in Milan and the I in I, the I in Italian, and the A in Alps.

i am truly jealous..you live near that beauty...wow..good for you.
Capitalize the I, replace .. with that, replace ...wow.. with a comma.

and yes..please point out my error's i would be amused and educated.
Capitalize the A in and, replace .. with [commaspace]. remove the apostrophe in error's, add a comma after error's, capitalize the I in I.

if it is not a bother...i would love to be corrected by a swiss about my english..my mum would be mortified..

No problem. It is fun interacting with Americans again. (I have already visited America once, with my family, to visit relatives. No offence meant, but your people tend to be rather ill-spirited, as in simply less kind and trusting. Once again, I mean no offence, I simply am stating my observations.)

you seem very nice,so let me say,thanks for the interaction.i really like meeting people of differing backgrounds and opinions...and i always like to learn how to speak my native tongue(no sarcasm) correctly.

You are welcome. Thank you for the interaction, you seem nice yourself. But this is just common courtesy, not any special nicety on my part.

like i said(well i left out the whole stoned thing..hehe)i did not pay attention much.

That is okay, I failed English but as you see I am proficient in it. By stoned you mean that you were on drugs, correct? Sorry if that isn't what it means, I don't know much American slang.

and can you tell me how to say hello and a few other things in swiss/german?

Like I mentioned, I live in Ticino, which speaks Italian, but I will in Italian.
Ciao = Hello AND Goodbye
Pronounced Chow. If you say it cheerfully, it sounds more like a greeting, and sadly it sounds more like a goodbye. Try it yourself.
I don't know what other words you would like, so I'll just put in a few random ones, alright?
Jochi = Games
Pronounced Jock-ee
Tempo = Time
Pronounced Temp-O
Parole = Words
Pronounced Par-awe-leh.

thanks..your friend...dave

You are welcome, Dave. I am Daemon.

If you'd like to contact me, my email address is daemon_stryker@yahoo.com Also, that part that is seperated in the middle is an underscore, _ , not a space.

The Empire shall rise again!!!

(if the south can, why cant britain)
Because the south did'nt have the IRA on its hands....... and we saw how successful that uprising was for them, have'nt we?

Now the south is widely considered the stupidest part of the world (in terms of human intelligence) HOWEVER generally they mistake a lower primate which is SIMILAR to human which is prevalent in the south, the republican, which is a lower primate, meaning it should not be counted in the IQ tally...

America would almost certainly win the actual war itself but could they handle the insurgency that would arise afterwards? They wouldn't like it up 'em, sir, they wouldn't like it up 'em.

Anyway, this thread is pointless. The British submarines have orders to fire their nuclear arsenal if radio contact with the main land ceases for over a week. The result would be a nuclear holocaust in both America and Britain, although Britain would be more holocausted, if I may use the term.


totally. even if the British did win the first throes of the war, and if they indeed did win the entire war (which i think would be impossible without the involvement of nuclear weapons) they could never win against the insurgency that would be sure to follow. but in tactical terms, i think we would have a better chance at winning due to America's size. it would be difficult to hide a large enough armada sent to attack the west coast; we would notice an invasion fleet. however, it would be a lot easier to surround the British Isles, where as one really couldn't surround America. Britain could easily attack the east coast, but not the west. as for foreign involvement, i don't think anyone would help either side, mainly because most of the world hates both England and America. we should also think: would either country try to occupy the other? since all occupations fail in the end, occupying a patriotic country like England or America wouldnt be a wise decision. not to mention there are a lot better places to stage a guerrilla war in America than England. Either way, a war like that would be catastrophic.:sniper: :mp5:

Because the south did'nt have the IRA on its hands.......

Neither does the UK.

and we saw how successful that uprising was for them, have'nt we?

:confused:

lol!


To be fair, it was more a counter-invasion. But still, yes, you had to fight to keep your independence. Your capital city got practically burnt down and you kept on fighting. Darn that American spirit. (Even if it did work in the 1 - 1 draw against Italy. Hooray!)


wise ass...lol...we got a bad call...hehe

So I'm aware that my past threads have been remarkably spurious, but this one is moderately less so. Relatively, I guess.

Anyway, I remember seeing this topic on another forum a few years ago and wonder what posters here would make of it. The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change. IIRC, the thread ended with a rather general consensus that should the British manage to focus the American forces on London, wage an urban war and conscript both men and women, then they may inflict enough damage on the American ground troops to force a stalemate. Much discussion was also given over to Air force vs Air force, placing of AA in the cities, status of refugees, use of WMD's (!) etc etc.

So yes. Be as brief as you like or as long-winded as you can, I reckon. How would the war turn out?

As fond as I am of Britain, the sad truth is that England would soon find its commonwealth to treat it the way the Republicans now treat Jack Abermhof (sp).

England would loose in a war of attrition assuming that the US had the sense to just set up an embargo. It's military might is more than enough to keep the English Navy from breaking through and reestablishing supply lines and England has no enforcable empire from which to draw resources anymore.

To be fair, it was more a counter-invasion. But still, yes, you had to fight to keep your independence. Your capital city got practically burnt down and you kept on fighting. Darn that American spirit. (Even if it did work in the 1 - 1 draw against Italy. Hooray!)


wise ass...lol...we got a bad call...hehe

quoted the wrong post...sorry

The Empire shall rise again!!!

(if the south can, why cant britain)

Doubtful.

The Empire shall rise again!!!

(if the south can, why cant britain)


Because America's military strength could crush it.

But I bet the Americans would welcome you trying.

Because the south did'nt have the IRA on its hands....... and we saw how successful that uprising was for them, have'nt we?

Now the south is widely considered the stupidest part of the world (in terms of human intelligence) HOWEVER generally they mistake a lower primate which is SIMILAR to human which is prevalent in the south, the republican, which is a lower primate, meaning it should not be counted in the IQ tally...

:rolleyes:

You are welcome, Dave. I am Daemon.

If you'd like to contact me, my email address is daemon_stryker@yahoo.com Also, that part that is seperated in the middle is an underscore, _ , not a space.

it is truly my pleasure to make your acqaintence.

my email is easier....dpanc60@yahoo.com

i have to thank you for your friendship,or at the least,the time you spent babbling with me..lol..i am kinda funny,i just love to meet people that can school me.

your wrong with your english though,but no worries.

i just am happy to meet someone nice for a change,everyone seems so hostile,which,as a father of 2,i didnt want..i want the group hug..lol...but seriously,thanks for the info,but i learned ciao along time ago...i just needed to learn how to be decent.


your very nice,but your spell checking was not up to par...but what would i know..seeing as i am speaking the language.

please email me some time,i love to interact with people from the world,as i am pigoen holed here with fox news.

i am proud to be an american,but that does not mean i wont listen to other views.

thanks again...your really nice and i like you alot..you make me smile.

New Radar to detect stealth bomber.

Guess what? US has developed new stealth craft to defeat just that.


The US aeronautical research dwarfs the UK's research by untold amounts. We have state of the art non-black carbonates, plastics, and metalloids for use in stealth air craft, and so its going to be hard to identify them even during the day.


If the US were to actually put that sort of thing into production right now, then just about any nation on earth would have trouble winning a military victory.


The issue is not military conflict; the topic of the thread is invasion. Winning a war versus the US is impossible. Thwarting an invasion, however, is possible, but it won't be done through superior technology. The UK doesn't have it.


Anyone who thinks that the US shares everything it has with the UK is bloody dreaming. My dad used to be one of the guys sent over to Britain to give talks about nuclear matters. And consistently this was always at least 1 year behind what the US was actually working on. Now some might say this is a matter of theoretical testing and what not, but the more likely answer is the US is unwilling to relinquish its clear technological advantage over other nations, even very close allies.

US won't share jack shit with non-allies, and with its allies its not completely forthcoming. Of course I'd be out of my mind if I didn't think the UK was doing the same in return, but the US development programs are many times more funded and have many times more researchers.




On the sea I'd say that the UK has got an advantage in terms of what it deploys, but this won't remain for much longer. The US military future is missile destroyers armed with the phalanx anti-missile system (or whatever supercedes this in the future), and so soon battleships will be a thing of the past, with the only big ships being carriers.


In terms of the air: the US could swamp the UK with planes. And no matter how well trained the UK pilots are a 5-1 numerical advantage overcomes it. Of course it probably doesn't help that the US is the leading aeronautical nation on the planet, and might I add has the only large scale space program on the planet as well.




But the US in order to invade the UK can't just play shadow games on the ocean. It requires an actual landing, and this is what the US could lose. The US if it just stayed back and made war with the UK could reduce it largely to rubble, but capturing the UK is a whole other ball game.


Quite simply an invasion of the UK is not very feasible. It might be able to be done, but it wouldn't be pretty for either side win or lose. Its simply too costly for either side to even consider, going in either direction.

NT

:rolleyes:
From what I've heard, the south is exceedingly stupid.
But then, as the world watched in horror, they elected George Bush as their president AGAIN!
I looked it up.
The southern States in the US voted bush, and everyone else voted anti-Bush. The only reason he won was their incredible stupidity at the expense of the world.

From what I've heard, the south is exceedingly stupid.
But then, as the world watched in horror, they elected George Bush as their president AGAIN!
I looked it up.
The southern States in the US voted bush, and everyone else voted anti-Bush. The only reason he won was their incredible stupidity at the expense of the world.

I see you never traveled in the South. I have. I can tell you that most of the people I have met are not stupid but are more intelligent than half the people on this thread.

I see you never traveled in the South. I have. I can tell you that most of the people I have met are not stupid but are more intelligent than half the people on this thread.

People in the South aren't stupid (average IQ wise, the Southern states lag behind the Northern states, but only by like 20 points at most). They just elect stupid leaders :p

[/hijack]

From what I've heard, the south is exceedingly stupid.
But then, as the world watched in horror, they elected George Bush as their president AGAIN!
I looked it up.
The southern States in the US voted bush, and everyone else voted anti-Bush. The only reason he won was their incredible stupidity at the expense of the world.

yea,the south is exceedingly stupid...to a point.

but as the swamp folk say,they know how to run a raccoon up a tree

i find it exceedingly funny that people all look down their collective noses at the south.

if you ask me,that's kinda of rascist and shortsighted.

just cause you live in the south your a tard...thats pretty telling of the know it alls.

and just as bad as the south thinking all yankees or euros are liberal twits.

see my point?

everyone is wrong!the dumb ass neocons are twits,and the knee jerk liberals are just as stupid.

saying people from the south(who helped free slaves) are neanderthals,makes the left just as bad as the neocons saying all people from the north are liberals....it baffles me how people get so sucked into stereotypes...actually fucking laughable...for so called educated people.


i keep forgetting...that america is a polar opposite of opinions,,the north is the liberal elite assholes...the south is neocon twits...wow...that sums up america in a nutshell!
forget about cali,the midwest.....america is...neocons in the south,and commie pinko's in the north.

and i thought euro's were free thinkers....guess i was wrong.

they are just as brainwashed as us dumb...insert adjective here..americans.

go figure,i am from the north east,the bastion of liberalism,my mom would help the devil himself...cause she was great,and i got friends down south that seem to be nice...but i guess i should hate them?
i dont know...

i am confused...if i have friends from the south...should i hate them?
as i am from the north...i guess that makes me a liberal?

it's kinda like saying all muslim's are terrorists....


if your from the south your a hillbilly and a rascist...how insulting.

tell me that aint the opinion of the world...your from alabama...your a hick...how is that different then saying your arab..your a terrorist?

time for bed...i have very litle energy to argue with rascists.

actually..i am gonna groove to the cranberries for a bit.

This whole thread is pointless nobody could invade anything seeing a how nobody has the ability to force entry into a hostile country with anything larger than a division.

Fargozia']Try wargames. We, the British, sent reservists (TA, our equivelant to the National Guard) against US infantry troops in FIBUA exercises. (Fighting In Built Up Areas.) Guess who won hands down on both attack and defence? (Hint: It wasn't the US regular Infantry troops. :p)

Better tactical doctrine and better training.

And I've heard of wargames with the opposite outcome. Any of these could easily be propoganda. A link would help.

And I've heard of wargames with the opposite outcome. Any of these could easily be propoganda. A link would help.


A guy I know on another forum told me once about a wargame on the Canada/Alaska border he participated in when he was in either 21st or 22nd Para. They tried to invade Juneau and were pushed back by the 82nd Airborne. I seems to remember him calling the Airborne a bunch of tough bastards.


So, ya, it can go both ways.

So I'm aware that my past threads have been remarkably spurious, but this one is moderately less so. Relatively, I guess.

Anyway, I remember seeing this topic on another forum a few years ago and wonder what posters here would make of it. The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change. IIRC, the thread ended with a rather general consensus that should the British manage to focus the American forces on London, wage an urban war and conscript both men and women, then they may inflict enough damage on the American ground troops to force a stalemate. Much discussion was also given over to Air force vs Air force, placing of AA in the cities, status of refugees, use of WMD's (!) etc etc.

So yes. Be as brief as you like or as long-winded as you can, I reckon. How would the war turn out?
America, 'cos we ROCK!!!11

Just a quick note to our Swiss friend... (I think I'm entitlted to briefly add to the off-topic, albeit that replies to my massive missive are missing).

Capitalize the M in my, remove the apostrophe in dad's and replace it with an apostrophe at the end (dads'), capitalize the M in Milan and the I in I, the I in Italian, and the A in Alps.I rather think that the original "dad's" is correct, for it is a possessive of singular "dad", not the plural.

If two [non-sibling] kids were talking about something their paternal parents' shared (e.g. "Our dads' favourite fishing place") it could be, but "My dad's car" is the more correct [i.e. the singular instance of a dad, including "our dad's love for us, his children"].

But I say this with the trepidation that some heretofor unrecognised (and, for me, completely nonsensical) grammatical rule might well exist, and also that extended diversion of discussion may occur. Please, consider commenting on my prior (on-topic) post instead of this one,

(There are also some that would ask for capitalisation of 'Dad', as a pseudo-proper name, but I would say it didn't apply in a "my dad, your dad" situation, just a "Can we go to the zoo, Dad?" one.)

British soldiers are the best in the world, in a recent study it was shown a british soldier can support himself and make a contribgution to the war effort from what the Americans waste.

Lets face it, everyone would LEAP at the chance to topple america, Britain would regain its colonies, canada would have alaska, and we'd most likelygo genocidal ojn the inbred republi....umm. people of america.

Doubtful.

'Twas meant as a joke.

yea,the south is exceedingly stupid...to a point.

but as the swamp folk say,they know how to run a raccoon up a tree

i find it exceedingly funny that people all look down their collective noses at the south.

if you ask me,that's kinda of rascist and shortsighted.

just cause you live in the south your a tard...thats pretty telling of the know it alls.

and just as bad as the south thinking all yankees or euros are liberal twits.

see my point?

everyone is wrong!the dumb ass neocons are twits,and the knee jerk liberals are just as stupid.

saying people from the south(who helped free slaves) are neanderthals,makes the left just as bad as the neocons saying all people from the north are liberals....it baffles me how people get so sucked into stereotypes...actually fucking laughable...for so called educated people.


i keep forgetting...that america is a polar opposite of opinions,,the north is the liberal elite assholes...the south is neocon twits...wow...that sums up america in a nutshell!
forget about cali,the midwest.....america is...neocons in the south,and commie pinko's in the north.

and i thought euro's were free thinkers....guess i was wrong.

they are just as brainwashed as us dumb...insert adjective here..americans.

go figure,i am from the north east,the bastion of liberalism,my mom would help the devil himself...cause she was great,and i got friends down south that seem to be nice...but i guess i should hate them?
i dont know...

i am confused...if i have friends from the south...should i hate them?
as i am from the north...i guess that makes me a liberal?

it's kinda like saying all muslim's are terrorists....


if your from the south your a hillbilly and a rascist...how insulting.

tell me that aint the opinion of the world...your from alabama...your a hick...how is that different then saying your arab..your a terrorist?

time for bed...i have very litle energy to argue with rascists.

actually..i am gonna groove to the cranberries for a bit.

You know... this (not just you, this whole argument) is about as far off topic as I've seen the thread get...

In terms of the air: the US could swamp the UK with planes. And no matter how well trained the UK pilots are a 5-1 numerical advantage overcomes it. Of course it probably doesn't help that the US is the leading aeronautical nation on the planet, and might I add has the only large scale space program on the planet as well.


I'd think the Uk would win ari battles for one reason only-we don't launch from carriers. That means we can have almootst unlimited planes-once there made we can fly them, plus we will ahve more airtime our skys. We may have a smaller force but that is a massive advantage. Plus we could land, rearm, reload and be back up in the time it takes you to get back to your arriers-thus stopping your numartic advantage.

in a recent study it was shown a british soldier can support himself and make a contribgution to the war effort from what the Americans waste.

Lets face it, everyone would LEAP at the chance to topple america, Britain would regain its colonies, canada would have alaska, and we'd most likelygo genocidal ojn the inbred republi....umm. people of america.

A: I would say that that is reasonable.

B: Colonies?
Nah, thnik IRA a million times over.

Of course America would win. Hands down. However, an American military occupation of our country wouldn't go down very well with us.. you've got to remember that you're dealing with a nation which is easily your equal in terms of political sophistication and "culture." We're cynical Europeans, so we're very unlikely to do anything we're told by Americans. Plus, if American soldiers frogmarched people around and pointed guns in everyone's faces as they do in Iraq, it wouldn't gain the respect they seem to demand.. We're still slightly infected with that "Blitz spirit" and a lot of UK residents, not including myself, generally stereotype Americans as stupid, loud and fat. All in all, I expect a number of us would be using our notorious sense of humour to laugh at you a little..

As fond as I am of Britain, the sad truth is that England would soon find its commonwealth to treat it the way the Republicans now treat Jack Abermhof (sp).

England would loose in a war of attrition assuming that the US had the sense to just set up an embargo. It's military might is more than enough to keep the English Navy from breaking through and reestablishing supply lines and England has no enforcable empire from which to draw resources anymore.

That can work both ways, Britain could blockade oil shippments to the US and if we could hold out, f**k America up through lack of oil. I mean as patriotic as USians are, they need their oil and would probably turn on the government.

PLEASE NOTE: I do NOT hate the US, im just stating a scenario that could happen, and in no way am i having a dig at the US.

All in all, I expect a number of us would be using our notorious sense of humour to laugh at you a little..
Rig the doughnut shops with C4, humourous and possibly effective.

That can work both ways, Britain could blockade oil shippments to the US and if we could hold out, f**k America up through lack of oil. I mean as patriotic as USians are, they need their oil and would probably turn on the government.

PLEASE NOTE: I do NOT hate the US, im just stating a scenario that could happen, and in no way am i having a dig at the US.

U have a problem. We get alot of oil out of Canada. Not to mention we have thousands of miles of coasts which will make it hard to blockade.

U have a problem. We get alot of oil out of Canada. Not to mention we have thousands of miles of coasts which will make it hard to blockade.


But then again, the Royal Navy has the best subdrivers in the Galaxy.

*chuffed*

RULE, Britannia!

First of Britain would ahve pleanty of warning as a sizable (i'm talking hundreds of thousands) force would have to be developed. The US would probably have an advantage in numbers and naval superiority. hwoever with the British fighters flying from home the air battle would be won by the british. The American airforce would have to fly-from carriers while the british would be close to home and be able to replenish it's losses.

So, early on, while the Americans cross the Atlantic Britians air-superiority grows as they get clsoer and the British advantages in that area grow. There would then be a naval clash which the Americans would win. there fleets sheer size would beat the better armed and trained british fleet. Hwoever the US would lsoe more than half it's ships anbd a lot of it's aircraft and carriers.

With british air-advantage, with support pouring in from the EU and China/Russia ect the US would be in trouble. the sensable thing to do would be retreat as I think it'd be pritty much impossable for the US homeland to be taken. Mostlikly you'd have aready lost hawaii and I'm pritty sure Canada and Mexico would be arming. It would be likley that the Chinise and Russians would be thinking about invading your easten states. With the power of the red army and the russians you'd have serious problems. Alaska would probably fall to the Canadians.

But presume that you don't pull back and carry on your attack. any landing would be hellish, landing it Wales would be very, very foolish as the Welsh mountains would made any progress hard, along with the armed civillian populance (Who would be armed, no doubt the home-guard would ahev been restarted and the farmers would ahev armed themselves. I also guess you'd avoid landing in Liverpool or one of the ports, and you'd avoid attacking N.Ireland as well. I'd say you'd try to attack some secluded scottish beach or Cornwall. Cornwall ebing the most likly as it's clsoer to the key centers of power.

The problem here is that you'd be facing not only British fighters and bkmbers but also the French, attacking Cornwall would put you in range of there airforce and they would be able to land troops to support the Uk easly. You'd also have to face the EU fleet.

Presume that somehow you get a beachead. You'd make rapid progress through the coutnryside as the smaller British forces fall abck. But you'd lsoe a lot of casultys to the SAS and SBS and otehr special forces. The British troops would amke a stand in the cities and I don't think that you'd be able to take them. tehre too big, too well armed and you'd have serious casultys by this time. Support from the EU would be pouring in from the EU and the Commonwealth and slowly you'd be force back. No doubt you'd try to ruin the coutnry as you retreat but eventually you'd be forced from the isles.

The casultys would be in millions from both sides. The US would lose mroe people than the Brits though as the British forces are better trained. The sheer application of effort to attack britian would mean the Us would be weak and China, Oz, and Russia would probably invade the Western states. You'd probably lose those. the Northern states would be in touble from a Candian and EU attack as the EU coutnrys led by the remaining British troops attempts to exact revenge. The big citys would fall but casultys would be huge for both sides and eventually the EU force would withdraw leaving the US easten states decimated. I think texas may well afall as well.

In the easten states I think that the outerlying states and Alaska would fall and stay concored by China, Russia and Canada. You'd probably be able to nagotiate Calanfornia and Washington (I think there the names) back but Alaska would stay Canadian.

end result, tens of millions dead, southern England and east and West USA ruined. The EU and China appear as Superpowers while the US and Britian attempts to recover, both ebcoming second rate powers.

China doesn't have the capacity to transport large amounts of men and equipment all the way to mainland America, nor does China or Russia have the capacity to conduct an amphibious invasion of the Western U.S. Even an invasion of Hawai would be a stretch, especially seeing as how they'd have no friendly territory to base off of for thousands of miles and if the Canadians joined the war Vancouver wouldn't be Canadian for long. And you have to remember the American forces in Japan and around the Pacific.

Canada couldn't take Alaska, if Canada joined the war they'd be to busy defending their long border with america to conduct any major offensive into Alaska, especially witht he horrible terrain and weather such an offensive would have to go through. Canada would put up a fight, especially with much of America's military oversea's, but in teh end without major oversea's help(Which is doubtfull as in this scenario Britian is under invasion) Canada's major population centers would most likely fall, though they'd give a good fight and the grand majority of Canada's land area would remain un occupied. The manpower to occupy that much territory would just simply not exist, not with America fighting the major war it would be oversea's. BUt Vancouver, Winnnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax exc. While this would leave most of Canada free, it would also put msot of Canada's poopulation and industry in American hands and I don't think(I may be wrong) that there are any major ports or airports in the north that could support much shipping severely limiting the threat of an EU/Chinese/Russian force landing in Canada.

A conventional invasion of Britian, if Britian had EU and Commonwealth help, would fail in the end, but not after a hell of a fight, we simply do not have the manpower exc to invade Britian, fight in Canada and hold down Iraq at the same time, but we wiould give you a very big fight. N Ireland would probaly be lost to Britian and Britian fleet would be trashed by the American navy but Britian itself would hold out. Likewise though, an immediate invasion of N America would fail. It would take years for the EU, Russia and China to build up for an invasion of N America. In that time though things would get heated elsewhere, especially the ME.



As for WW2, Russia could have won without Normandy or Torch. But if America had not helped the Allies one bit and had stayed out of things completely I am inclined to say Russia would not have won. Without American military involvment the war would have been prolonged and would have gotten much bloodier, but without American aid on top of the military involvement Russia would not have lasted in the end. Thousands of vehicles, tanks, guns exc exc were sent to Russia and helped keep Russia and Britian in the war early on. It wasn't just equipment, but raw materials like rubber which Russia could not have gone without. But the biggest thing was medicine. Medicine that Russia could not have and was not producing because of the war, medicine from America which kept disease from running rampant among the Russian armies in the shit conditions they lived in.

Now I'm not saying America won WW2 because thats BS, without Russian involvement we never would have liberated France, the ME would be German and Britian would have become a bombed out shell. But likewise, if America did not involve itself on the Allies side at all Russia would not have won.

But then again, the Royal Navy has the best subdrivers in the Galaxy.

*chuffed*

RULE, Britannia!

And we have the most stealthiest subs in the world.

Rule USN.

U have a problem. We get alot of oil out of Canada. Not to mention we have thousands of miles of coasts which will make it hard to blockade.

I meant oil from the middle east/caspian sea.

I meant oil from the middle east/caspian sea.

Won't affect us to much as we get MOST OF OUR OIL FROM CANADA.

And we have the most stealthiest subs in the world.

Rule USN.

Stealthy subs dont mean a thing, the latest sonar deployed by both the RN and USN mean its very difficult to operate and/or hide from surface ships.

Stealthy subs dont mean a thing, the latest sonar deployed by both the RN and USN mean its very difficult to operate and/or hide from surface ships.

Our subs are still the best in the world :D

And we have the most stealthiest subs in the world.

Rule USN.


Bulldust.

God has never endorsed a President, but He has endorsed a King or 2.

The Queen. God bless her.

*pokes Corneliu with a blunt pike*

Bulldust.

God has never endorsed a President, but He has endorsed a King or 2.

The Queen. God bless her.

*pokes Corneliu with a blunt pike*

We do not need God to endorse a President for He has endorsed the whole Country.

God Bless America :D

We do not need God to endorse a President for He has endorsed the whole Country.

God Bless America :D

Has He?

*grins at Corneliu*

( see you after the weekend, buddie! )

I think whatever the outcome, premptively surrender to both the US and the UK.

Has He?

*grins at Corneliu*

( see you after the weekend, buddie! )

Take Care BogMarsh. :)

I think whatever the outcome, premptively surrender to both the US and the UK.

What are ya? French? LOL :D

To be honest, if we're getting technical, nobody wins in war, yes the Americans beat the British in 1812. However, when Charles was against Cromwell, crommy only had to lose once to be classed as a traitor, so, if you compare this with 1812, Britain only needed to loose once to be kicked out. Going back to argentina, they did lose, quite bad actually, but that's what you get for messing with the Brits.

America is a super power, but britain is a mighty strong nation, it could launch a strong attack, and it may not ahve superiority in numbers, but what it lacks in that area, it makes up for in quality. Take the SAS for example, they could beat back any American special force. The Gurkhas, another great unit, infact, it's the most feared unit in the world, the argentinians cr*pped themselves wen the Gurkhas became involved.

To sum this up, and reflecting on my first statement, nobody wins in war. However, a nuclear war would, inevitably, break out if contact was lost with the mainland. It would only reach that if America could land on Britain, which would be a challenge in itself. Also, we have a trick up our sleeves, NATO. If the Americans attacked us, Europe would not stand for it, and NATO would be instantaniously sent in. Basically, America would not win, in the long-term anyway. They wouldn't get on the land for some time, due to Britains great air force and Navy, and when they did, teh army would give 'em one hell of a welcome. So i doubt they would win. If they did, they'd soon get off, NATO would come in.

To be honest, if we're getting technical, nobody wins in war, yes the Americans beat the British in 1812. However, when Charles was against Cromwell, crommy only had to lose once to be classed as a traitor, so, if you compare this with 1812, Britain only needed to loose once to be kicked out. Going back to argentina, they did lose, quite bad actually, but that's what you get for messing with the Brits.

America is a super power, but britain is a mighty strong nation, it could launch a strong attack, and it may not ahve superiority in numbers, but what it lacks in that area, it makes up for in quality. Take the SAS for example, they could beat back any American special force. The Gurkhas, another great unit, infact, it's the most feared unit in the world, the argentinians cr*pped themselves wen the Gurkhas became involved.

To sum this up, and reflecting on my first statement, nobody wins in war. However, a nuclear war would, inevitably, break out if contact was lost with the mainland. It would only reach that if America could land on Britain, which would be a challenge in itself. Also, we have a trick up our sleeves, NATO. If the Americans attacked us, Europe would not stand for it, and NATO would be instantaniously sent in. Basically, America would not win, in the long-term anyway. They wouldn't get on the land for some time, due to Britains great air force and Navy, and when they did, teh army would give 'em one hell of a welcome. So i doubt they would win. If they did, they'd soon get off, NATO would come in.

Captured Argentinian conscripts stated that their officers told them if captured by the Gurkhas they would be EATEN. That'll make you crap yourself.

To sum this up, and reflecting on my first statement, nobody wins in war. However, a nuclear war would, inevitably, break out if contact was lost with the mainland. It would only reach that if America could land on Britain, which would be a challenge in itself. Also, we have a trick up our sleeves, NATO. If the Americans attacked us, Europe would not stand for it, and NATO would be instantaniously sent in. Basically, America would not win, in the long-term anyway. They wouldn't get on the land for some time, due to Britains great air force and Navy, and when they did, teh army would give 'em one hell of a welcome. So i doubt they would win. If they did, they'd soon get off, NATO would come in.

It'd be the EU, not NATO. And Britian's navy woul not win a fight in the Atlantic against America's navy.

To be honest, if we're getting technical, nobody wins in war, yes the Americans beat the British in 1812. However, when Charles was against Cromwell, crommy only had to lose once to be classed as a traitor, so, if you compare this with 1812, Britain only needed to loose once to be kicked out. Going back to argentina, they did lose, quite bad actually, but that's what you get for messing with the Brits.

1) War of 1812 was a friggin draw. No way around that. It was a draw.
2) Cromwell actually won the civil war but was deposed by his own people.

America is a super power, but britain is a mighty strong nation, it could launch a strong attack, and it may not ahve superiority in numbers, but what it lacks in that area, it makes up for in quality. Take the SAS for example, they could beat back any American special force. The Gurkhas, another great unit, infact, it's the most feared unit in the world, the argentinians cr*pped themselves wen the Gurkhas became involved.

You are forgetting the Navy. No war would be complete without naval action and in that, Britain would lose. If you do not have control of the sea-lanes, you are going to lose. Especially since Britain imports alot of materials.

To sum this up, and reflecting on my first statement, nobody wins in war.

I'll agree to this.

However, a nuclear war would, inevitably, break out if contact was lost with the mainland.

What makes you think this will go nuclear?

It would only reach that if America could land on Britain, which would be a challenge in itself. Also, we have a trick up our sleeves, NATO.

It would depend on who started it. If Britain started it then NATO would have no choice but to come in on the side of the United States. If we start it then the opposite is true.

If the Americans attacked us, Europe would not stand for it, and NATO would be instantaniously sent in. Basically, America would not win, in the long-term anyway.

And what does Europe have that can stop the United States at sea?

They wouldn't get on the land for some time, due to Britains great air force and Navy, and when they did, teh army would give 'em one hell of a welcome. So i doubt they would win. If they did, they'd soon get off, NATO would come in.

I doubt it. If NATO didn't get involved during the Greek-Turkish war, what makes you think they'll get involved in a British-American War?

Why would a US Citizen(i dont like the word american because thats not specific,america is not a country, its 2 continents)make such a statement?Because Great Britain would win.The US can bring back their old glory day during the reevolutionary period all they want,but the fact of the matter is that other countries are tired of being bossed around by a superpower that cant eventr deterr crime.So I belive that a lot of european countries would be rallied to Great Britain side.Hopefully by the time this war happens Russia will be a stronger more united country hopefully based on sociallist ideals so that when the war comes it can lend a helping hand to the overthrow of the US.VIVA LA REVOLUTION CAMMARADAS!LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION COMMRADES!

China doesn't have the capacity to transport large amounts of men and equipment all the way to mainland America, nor does China or Russia have the capacity to conduct an amphibious invasion of the Western U.S. Even an invasion of Hawai would be a stretch, especially seeing as how they'd have no friendly territory to base off of for thousands of miles and if the Canadians joined the war Vancouver wouldn't be Canadian for long. And you have to remember the American forces in Japan and around the Pacific.

Canada couldn't take Alaska, if Canada joined the war they'd be to busy defending their long border with america to conduct any major offensive into Alaska, especially witht he horrible terrain and weather such an offensive would have to go through. Canada would put up a fight, especially with much of America's military oversea's, but in teh end without major oversea's help(Which is doubtfull as in this scenario Britian is under invasion) Canada's major population centers would most likely fall, though they'd give a good fight and the grand majority of Canada's land area would remain un occupied. The manpower to occupy that much territory would just simply not exist, not with America fighting the major war it would be oversea's. BUt Vancouver, Winnnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax exc. While this would leave most of Canada free, it would also put msot of Canada's poopulation and industry in American hands and I don't think(I may be wrong) that there are any major ports or airports in the north that could support much shipping severely limiting the threat of an EU/Chinese/Russian force landing in Canada.


Actually, it dosn't have that campacity yet. But with a year or so to prepare (Thats the timesclae wyhere looking at. maybe 2 years depends how long it takes Britian to beat abck the American invasion, and for the EU to rally and prepare there own fleet) the chinise with there huge industrial power could build a hell of a lot of ships.

Most of the Us navy would be commited in the Atlantic, protecting your invasions supply routes and fighting off the remains of the Royal Navy and the EU/Russian forces there. And with the assistance of Russia, India, South Africa, Sveral OSuth American nations and Oz they could easly muster a large fleet-large enough to sweep away what fleet you've got left in the southern states.

Again with you canadian ideas. Canda isn't that weak. If it timed it's entry into the war correctly-right when you've got heavy casultys and your retreating from britian and your facing invasion from 4 directions, it could have a big sway on results. It would all depend on them not joining the war immidetly but building there forces-like China and the commonwealth could do. Reamber at this point the US is fully commited in Britian, you don't haev the resources to launch a pre-emtive stike on those countrys.


A conventional invasion of Britian, if Britian had EU and Commonwealth help, would fail in the end, but not after a hell of a fight, we simply do not have the manpower exc to invade Britian, fight in Canada and hold down Iraq at the same time, but we wiould give you a very big fight. N Ireland would probaly be lost to Britian and Britian fleet would be trashed by the American navy but Britian itself would hold out. Likewise though, an immediate invasion of N America would fail. It would take years for the EU, Russia and China to build up for an invasion of N America. In that time though things would get heated elsewhere, especially the ME.


As I say in my post, the casultys would be in millions on both sides. probably more Americnan combatants would die that European thoygh. I doubt N.Ireland would be lost-but it would be in a perminant state of civil war as the loyalists and sepratists fight to try and hold onto it. it wouldn't be lost, just unstable. I agree our fleet would be trashed but in turn your airforce and navy would be serously damaged.

I doubt that a land invasion of Americas western states would work by the EU. After that lenghth of war it is possable adn certainly they'd be wanting to have a go but it wouldn't work. if the commonwealth and China attack the Easten states then i think they could be taken.

As for WW2, Russia could have won without Normandy or Torch. But if America had not helped the Allies one bit and had stayed out of things completely I am inclined to say Russia would not have won. Without American military involvment the war would have been prolonged and would have gotten much bloodier, but without American aid on top of the military involvement Russia would not have lasted in the end.[snip]Regardless of debating whether Russia could have won its front had the US not joined the war (back to being off-topic, this, sorry), I think we're on much safer ground to say that the western Allies could not have possibly prevailed if the Russians hadn't been absorbing much of the post-Barbarossa German war effort.

And (to bring this kicking and screaming back to the subject at hand) absorbtion of war effort is going to be a key part of the hypothetical attack of the UK by the US.

(Discuss. e.g. whether initial US attacks-from-afar can sufficiently emasculate UK defences, or will the logistical nightmare of actually getting the troops to the UK, keeping them supplied, keeping them from being casualties, be the decisive point in the battle.)

Quite frankly, assuming that the rest of Europe, and Russia, remained absent, it would be a massacre. However, it would further demonstrate the perfidy of the USA.

Quite frankly, assuming that the rest of Europe, and Russia, remained absent, it would be a massacre. However, it would further demonstrate the perfidy of the USA.

I thought it was Albion that was perfidious?

Attaquons dans ses eaux la perfide Albion

I thought it was Albion that was perfidious?

Attaquons dans ses eaux la perfide Albion

You lose me.

France has the biggest warship in the whole world.
Ever see them do a dance bout' it?

What is the name of the Ship? Has it been compared to the Nimitz Class CVN? I think it has already been said that the Nimitz class are the largest ships in the world. So what is the name of this ship? Its class? You have yet to produce it.

What is the name of the Ship? Has it been compared to the Nimitz Class CVN? I think it has already been said that the Nimitz class are the largest ships in the world. So what is the name of this ship? Its class? You have yet to produce it.
Charles de Gaulle, my good sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle

I thought it was Albion that was perfidious?
Attaquons dans ses eaux la perfide Albion

You lose me.

Sorry.

Albion is a traditional term for Britain. Perfidious Albion is a well know (well, relatively speaking) phrase for "treacherous Britain." The phrase I posted means, "Let us attack treacherous Britain in her waters". It originated several hundred years ago (I'm not sure where), but was repeated regularly during the Napoleonic wars.

I thought your use of the word perfidy was a play off of that phrase.

What makes you think this will go nuclear?


Hmm, a country with nuclear bombs invades another country with nuclear bombs, I wonder what could possibly happen?

Hmm, a country with nuclear bombs invades another country with nuclear bombs, I wonder what could possibly happen?

Doesn't have to resort to nuclear war.

Everybody knows the winner to this is obvious........

ME! I'd kick both their asses and the world would become shaped like a lollipop and marijuana would be forced upon the people until their minds were freed, then we'd release the LSD and Mescaline and everybody would live in peace and John Lennon would rise from the dead
*Takes a bow*

Doesn't have to resort to nuclear war.
Especially when it's Britain under attack. I imagine that for many of the decision makers effectively London = Britain. It's a hell of a lot of eggs in a very small basket and you can't help thinking that they'd rather have Britain occupied than getting London nuked.

The last time I was in London I stood on a street corner and could see TWO Kentucky Fried Chickens and a McDonalds.

American invaded long ago. The war is over and Britain lost.

Charles de Gaulle, my good sir.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_aircraft_carrier_Charles_de_Gaulle

Ummmm...lol?

The Abe Lincoln is nearly 70 metres longer than the De Gaulle. Plus, the De Gaulle can only carry 40 Aircraft. The Lincoln can carry 90.

The last time I was in London I stood on a street corner and could see TWO Kentucky Fried Chickens and a McDonalds.

American invaded long ago. The war is over and Britain lost.
And yet if you looked at a queue forming outside a US bookstore that'd just got the new Harry Potter book, you'd have to concede that if Britain lost the war, then it at least won a few skirmishes.:)

Ummmm...lol?

The Abe Lincoln is nearly 70 metres longer than the De Gaulle. Plus, the De Gaulle can only carry 40 Aircraft. The Lincoln can carry 90.

LOL! Isn't it great when people don't know their facts about warships?

You fail at history. Ever hear of a thing called the War of 1812?

Oh, and seeing as Argentina gave Britain a handful even more recently, your arrogance is absurd.

Well your arrogance astounds me actually. We won Argentina lost quite badly. Thacher told them that she was sending a small task force over and we beat them. Remember that the Royal Navy is the dominating force in the sea's.

And yet if you looked at a queue forming outside a US bookstore that'd just got the new Harry Potter book, you'd have to concede that if Britain lost the war, then it at least won a few skirmishes.:)
A few skirmishes.... but we still have: Stephen King...basically the entire Rap music community...... Hunter S. Thompson...... Timothy Leary... and RICK jAMES.......


BUT Britain has: Ozzy.. (U win that round....) J.K. Rowling, and Judas Preist....

BUT u also have the following: The Spice Girls.... 'nuff said

Well your arrogance astounds me actually. We won Argentina lost quite badly. Thacher told them that she was sending a small task force over and we beat them. Remember that the Royal Navy is the dominating force in the sea's.

It is? *dies of laughter*

Well your arrogance astounds me actually. We won Argentina lost quite badly. Thacher told them that she was sending a small task force over and we beat them. Remember that the Royal Navy is the dominating force in the sea's.

Not anymore, friend. the RN lost their dominence when they refused to build Supercarriers.

LOL! Isn't it great when people don't know their facts about warships?

Yes, it is crazy. Jolly crazy, in fact.

Yes, it is crazy. Jolly crazy, in fact.

Agreed.

Royal Navy dominant? HA! I scoff in your face ....

I may hate this country (United States).... but it's still better than Britain... in the facts: U.S. nazy has
- larger numbers
- more funding
- much more sophisticated technology
- o yeah, and a lil thingy called... O YEAH! Nuclear weapons equipped on most large submarines

Not anymore, friend. the RN lost their dominence when they refused to build Supercarriers.
To be fair to the Royal Navy, or more specifically the Wilson Government who in all it's wisdom decided the only thing we'd be needing naval airpower for was defeating Soviet submarines, we'd have never been able to build as many supercarriers as the US anyway, if dominance was the goal.

The last time I was in London I stood on a street corner and could see TWO Kentucky Fried Chickens and a McDonalds.

American invaded long ago. The war is over and Britain lost.

Not particularly. Anti-american sentiment, and thus cultural transition, is fairly ardent. I should imagine that fast food is used considerably less now, in light of Jamie's School Dinners.

Not particularly. Anti-american sentiment, and thus cultural transition, is fairly ardent. I should imagine that fast food is used considerably less now, in light of Jamie's School Dinners.

No way. I was just in London and I walked past a Mcdonald and a KFC just to GET to a pizza hut just a block down and ate there. American fastfood is everywhere and its not dying out just yet.

It'd be the EU, not NATO. And Britian's navy woul not win a fight in the Atlantic against America's navy.
The Royal Navy would fight the US Navy and beat them. If you knew anything you would know that the royal navy is the best Navy in the world. We are the best trained Navy, we are the best Navy in practice, we are the best! All we lack is numbers but we make up for that with quality.

Think before you make these unprofound remarks that have no backing or evidence.

The Royal Navy would fight the US Navy and beat them.

How many ships does the Brits have? How many carrier groups? How many ships can they bring to bear?

If you knew anything you would know that the royal navy is the best Navy in the world. We are the best trained Navy, we are the best Navy in practice, we are the best! All we lack is numbers but we make up for that with quality.

And the US have numbers AND quality. A deadly combination.

Think before you make these unprofound remarks that have no backing or evidence.

Right back at ya.

No way. I was just in London and I walked past a Mcdonald and a KFC just to GET to a pizza hut just a block down and ate there. American fastfood is everywhere and its not dying out just yet.

Pizza Hut isn't fast food, per se, insofar as it requires one to sit down and order from a menu. Public opinion regarding "fast-food", however, is becoming progressively colder.

Royal Navy dominant? HA! I scoff in your face ....

I may hate this country (United States).... but it's still better than Britain... in the facts: U.S. nazy has
- larger numbers
- more funding
- much more sophisticated technology
- o yeah, and a lil thingy called... O YEAH! Nuclear weapons equipped on most large submarines

Larger numbers. Larger numbers have no relevence, quality is what matters that is what Rn has and US navy lacks.
-More funding, they might have more funding but money has no bearing over the Navy's ability to win a battle.
-Sophisticated technology? My ass the RN infact has the most technologically advanced ship in the world and the Navy will have all new ships by 2015 including some carriers that will be the most technology advanced in the world.
-Neuclear weapons? have you heared of the vanguard class of sub? This is the class that carry balistic weapons, the trident system. Neuclear weapons are not equipped on most large subs in the US navy. They are equiped on the class of subs that are the Neuclear class.

Larger numbers. Larger numbers have no relevence, quality is what matters that is what Rn has and US navy lacks.

Proof?

-More funding, they might have more funding but money has no bearing over the Navy's ability to win a battle.

Ok. I'll agree with this.

-Sophisticated technology? My ass the RN infact has the most technologically advanced ship in the world and the Navy will have all new ships by 2015 including some carriers that will be the most technology advanced in the world.

More proof please?

-Neuclear weapons? have you heared of the vanguard class of sub? This is the class that carry balistic weapons, the trident system. Neuclear weapons are not equipped on most large subs in the US navy. They are equiped on the class of subs that are the Neuclear class.

You are forgetting perhaps the Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine?

Pizza Hut isn't fast food, per se, insofar as it requires one to sit down and order from a menu. Public opinion regarding "fast-food", however, is becoming progressively colder.Well, all fast food in the UK (Pizza Huts, TGI Fridays and other restaurants not included for the above reasons) is famously neither fast nor food. I believe it is only the latter quality (or lack, thereof) that was faithfully inherited from the respective US parent organisations and inspirations, however.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with the issue at hand (and Jamiie's School Dinners hasn't had any visible effect on this other issue, from my viewpoint), so let's leave it at that.

Pizza Hut isn't fast food, per se, insofar as it requires one to sit down and order from a menu. Public opinion regarding "fast-food", however, is becoming progressively colder.

I was actually amazed the I actually had a sit down dinner at a Pizza hut, it was the strangest feeling ever.

Not anymore, friend. the RN lost their dominence when they refused to build Supercarriers.
I should know the Royal Navy retains it dominence as I am the comanding officer of HMS Ark Royal. I am Commander Tim Stockings of the Royal Navy. "Zeal does not rest".

I was actually amazed the I actually had a sit down dinner at a Pizza hut, it was the strangest feeling ever.

It was kinda odd in Florida in April, I couldn't sit down.

I should know the Royal Navy retains it dominence as I am the comanding officer of HMS Ark Royal. I am Commander Tim Stockings of the Royal Navy. "Zeal does not rest".

HAHA! Ok anyone else not buying this guy's bs? BTW, How was the Persian Gulf? I know that the HMS Ark Royal was there.

I'm going to have to agree with Bottle here. America, my own country, pisses me off with alot of our foriegn pollicies. We feel WE should police the world, as long as it benefits us in some way, and thats just a bit obsurd IMO. Our forces could be so much better put to use, but I wont even start that rant here.

As for America invading Britian...
1 on 1- I would say we would win. Not easily. However several other countries would be quick to Britians aide, and we would surely be taught a lesson on why trying that invasion was rather stupid. Although I honestly wouldn't put something like that notion past Bush.

As for Britian invading the US.
1 on 1- Would be Britian loosing horridly. With assistance from other countries I still think in the end those invading countries would pull out due to the sheer numbers of our population being armed. The losses taken trying to fight millions of armed civilians fighting for thier country wouldn't be worth it in the end. However we would be left severly crippled ecenomically, and hard to say what exactly we would do at that point.

Just my 2c worth.
p.s. Can I come live with you guys over in the European area? You guys have all the good beers anyways :D
After all, every true american knows how to shoot a shotgun and make a molotov cocktail.

I should know the Royal Navy retains it dominence as I am the comanding officer of HMS Ark Royal. I am Commander Tim Stockings of the Royal Navy. "Zeal does not rest".

If you are indeed Commander Tim Stockings then you will know that you have broken three military laws.

If you are not (as I suspect) then you have broken the civil law by pretending to be someone you are not. That is deception

However, as in the same post you have mis-spelled 'Dominance' and 'Commanding' in the same three sentence post- I doubt you passed the Royal Navy enterence exam, let alone are a Commander. You also have no clue how English is written, as your whole post is mis-ordered.

Do NOT impersonate members of the Armed Forces. It is ILLEGAL and undeserving. You don't deserve to lick the boots of real warriors who have put their lives on the line in service to their country.

We do not need God to endorse a President for He has endorsed the whole Country.

God Bless America :D

Just like the way God blessed the German soldiers. Didn't their belt buckles state "Gott mit Uns" (God is with us)? ;) A self-proclaimed blessing is no blessing.

The Royal Navy would fight the US Navy and beat them. If you knew anything you would know that the royal navy is the best Navy in the world. We are the best trained Navy, we are the best Navy in practice, we are the best! All we lack is numbers but we make up for that with quality.

Think before you make these unprofound remarks that have no backing or evidence.

Best navy? The US Navy is able to handle damage control than of the Royal Navy. The US NAvy's ability to handle damage control makes a destroyer handle more damage that could sink a AC carrier. You have to think about damage control.

As an American, I think defeating Britain would be impossible. All the Brits would have to do is drop pictures of Kiera Knightley and Kate Beckinsale with pouty faces saying "Surrender Yanks" and I would immediately commit treason.

No, but there would be an ocean full of sperm floating around.

Larger numbers. Larger numbers have no relevence, quality is what matters that is what Rn has and US navy lacks.
-More funding, they might have more funding but money has no bearing over the Navy's ability to win a battle.
-Sophisticated technology? My ass the RN infact has the most technologically advanced ship in the world and the Navy will have all new ships by 2015 including some carriers that will be the most technology advanced in the world.
-Neuclear weapons? have you heared of the vanguard class of sub? This is the class that carry balistic weapons, the trident system. Neuclear weapons are not equipped on most large subs in the US navy. They are equiped on the class of subs that are the Neuclear class.

Shhhh! dont tell them about those

Loose lips sink ships as they said in WW2

Shhhh! dont tell them about those

Loose lips sink ships as they said in WW2

He has yet to respond to my counter points nor has he presented proof when asked for it.

So I'm aware that my past threads have been remarkably spurious, but this one is moderately less so. Relatively, I guess.

Anyway, I remember seeing this topic on another forum a few years ago and wonder what posters here would make of it. The basic conceit is that America, for reasons unclear, invade Britain with the intent of regime change. IIRC, the thread ended with a rather general consensus that should the British manage to focus the American forces on London, wage an urban war and conscript both men and women, then they may inflict enough damage on the American ground troops to force a stalemate. Much discussion was also given over to Air force vs Air force, placing of AA in the cities, status of refugees, use of WMD's (!) etc etc.

So yes. Be as brief as you like or as long-winded as you can, I reckon. How would the war turn out?

The question based on an absurd premise, which itself is merely a snide assault on US foreign policy. The notion that the US would seek "regime change" in the UK through military action reflects the propounder's silly equation of such an imaginary action with the US liberation of Iraq from the Saddamite dictatorship. Obviously there is not the slightest similarity between the former Saddamite regime and the present or any likely future government of the UK. Any wild conjectures that the US would treat the two similarly are as preposterous as they are pretentious, and clearly are intended solely to provide another venue for America-bashing.

Actually, it dosn't have that campacity yet. But with a year or so to prepare (Thats the timesclae wyhere looking at. maybe 2 years depends how long it takes Britian to beat abck the American invasion, and for the EU to rally and prepare there own fleet) the chinise with there huge industrial power could build a hell of a lot of ships.

Most of the Us navy would be commited in the Atlantic, protecting your invasions supply routes and fighting off the remains of the Royal Navy and the EU/Russian forces there. And with the assistance of Russia, India, South Africa, Sveral OSuth American nations and Oz they could easly muster a large fleet-large enough to sweep away what fleet you've got left in the southern states.

Again with you canadian ideas. Canda isn't that weak. If it timed it's entry into the war correctly-right when you've got heavy casultys and your retreating from britian and your facing invasion from 4 directions, it could have a big sway on results. It would all depend on them not joining the war immidetly but building there forces-like China and the commonwealth could do. Reamber at this point the US is fully commited in Britian, you don't haev the resources to launch a pre-emtive stike on those countrys.
.

This is assuming the entire world is ganging up on America. Anyway, China would not invade mainland America, they'd have no reason to. If they got involved they'd busy themselves with making Asia their's-helping NK deal with U.S. backed SK, the American presence in Japan exc exc but once they secured SE Asia they wouldn't care at all about the rest of what was going on in Europe and America. A more likely scenario if America invaded Britian and Russia got involved is a Chinese invasion of Siberia, theres a reason the Russian's have dozens of ICBM's aimed at China. Either way, China has a hgue industrial capacity, but not a huge shipbuilding capacity, they do not have the ability to pump out large numbers of qaulity ships.

As for Canada, it isn't that weak, but it sure as hell isn't that strong compared to America. Assuming America was to deeply embroiled oversea's and Canada did invade America with nothing but National Gaurd and reserve units in America, they would get somewhere, but not very far. How far they get depends on where they invade, and it most likely won't exactly be a surprise, hiding an army is kind of hard. A Canadian invasion would most likely fall on New England or Michigan, Canada doesn't have the manpower to pull an offensive in the wide open spaces of the Midwest, they'd have a hell of a time just holding down Detroit, you have to realize just how many American citizens have guns, and how many guns those people that have them have. And Canada, while it could build up some, doesn't have the manpower to build up much nor does it have the ability to produce a lot of the high tech weapons it uses, and Europe would be in no position to resupply them. Unless Britian and its allies got control of the N Atlantic, Canada would get rolled if it joined the war, even if it spent a year or two building up.



As I say in my post, the casultys would be in millions on both sides. probably more Americnan combatants would die that European thoygh. I doubt N.Ireland would be lost-but it would be in a perminant state of civil war as the loyalists and sepratists fight to try and hold onto it. it wouldn't be lost, just unstable. I agree our fleet would be trashed but in turn your airforce and navy would be serously damaged.

I doubt that a land invasion of Americas western states would work by the EU. After that lenghth of war it is possable adn certainly they'd be wanting to have a go but it wouldn't work. if the commonwealth and China attack the Easten states then i think they could be taken.

Not many more American combatants would die, and if civilian casualties were included in a war on the British isles themselves, more Brits would die. There hasn't been an urban battle to date tha hasn't seen lots of civilian casualties, and an invasion of Britian would be very urban. Our navy would take a very large hit, not a crippling blow, but one that would severely limit what actions we could take in the future, but we would still have the strength to hold the Atlantic and defend our western shores. Our airforce wouldn't take as much of a hit as our navy, there is a bigger difference between our airforces than our navies.

If war were to happen between Britian and America though, I doubt an invasion of Britian would take place, there really is no point. Once the Atlantic is secured Britian could just be starved. Maybe a landing on Ireland to secure that island, but an actual invasion of Britian itself would be unnescessary. With the sea's secured Britian could be starved fairly easily, and once the sea's are secured the threat of Britian rebuilding its fleet would be nonexistent. Britian wouldn't be able to import needed material and its shipyards would be under attack, be it from airstrikes or cruise missile strikes, likewise for the airforce exc. Granted airstrikes and the like would be costly at first, in the end america would be able to afford the cost and Britian would not, especially while a blockade was going on. And strategically America would be in a good position to bloackade and pound Britian with bases on Iceland.(They were designed originally to hold B-52's.)

These kinds of questions only apply to imaginary wargaming scenarios where only military considerations are factored in. Military the United States could fight and win a defensive war against ALL the nations of the world combined (although the same could not be said of an offensive war of conquest).

However, the social pressures on the government and military have to be factored in as well. What do you think the people of the U.S. would be doing on the homefront while this supposed war with Britain was going on? I, and several tens of millions of my fellow Americans, would be engaging in massive protests and civil disobedience to stop such a war.

Don't you think that might have some affect on the battle front? It sure did in Vietnam.

The Royal Navy would fight the US Navy and beat them. If you knew anything you would know that the royal navy is the best Navy in the world. We are the best trained Navy, we are the best Navy in practice, we are the best! All we lack is numbers but we make up for that with quality.

Think before you make these unprofound remarks that have no backing or evidence.

No, no they wouldn't, the RN would put up one hell of a fight, I can't take that away from them, but in the end the RN loses. You lack numbers, and while qaulity can make up for that, you don't have much of an edge there over the USN, in terms of training or technology.

These kinds of questions only apply to imaginary wargaming scenarios where only military considerations are factored in. Military the United States could fight and win a defensive war against the all the nations of the world combined (although the same could not be said of an offensive war of conquest).

However, the social pressures on the government and military have to be factored in as well. What do you think the people of the U.S. would be doing on the homefront while this supposed war with Britain was going on? I, and several tens of millions of my fellow Americans, would be engaging in massive protests and civil disobedience to stop such a war.

Don't you think that might have some affect on the battle front? It sure did in Vietnam.

You don't think the same wouldn't be happening in Britian? Or in Canada if, as some have suggested they would, Canada invaded the U.S.?

You don't think the same would be happening in Britian? Or in Canada if, as some have suggested they would, Canada invaded the U.S.?

Absolutely. Which is why democracies don't fight wars with each other.