NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Even if America was attacked first, you would engage in such?

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

You have a slight problem for Britain is not technically a democracy and neither is the United States.

I should think that the American Revolution settled this question.

Even if America was attacked first, you would engage in such?

Is there any posible scenario you can imagine where the UK would launch an attack on the United States? I can't.

The U.S. has not been attacked by any country in 65 years.

Is there any posible scenario you can imagine where the UK would launch an attack on the United States? I can't.

Yea just like I can't think of a scenerio for the US to attack Britain. now that we got real life straight, what if Britain did start it? Would you still engage in such?

Yea just like I can't think of a scenerio for the US to attack Britain. now that we got real life straight, what if Britain did start it? Would you still engage in such?

If an avocado tree grew out of your ass would you shit guacamole and sell it to Taco Bell?

Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.

If an avocado tree grew out of your ass would you shit guacamole and sell it to Taco Bell?

Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.


Stop dodging and answer the question.

Britain!!

Yea, 'cause British women have amazingly hot accents. Well, some do anyway. Mmmmm :fluffle:.

Stop dodging and answer the question.

You first. What will you do with the chip dip dripping out of your sphincter?

Britain!!

Yea, 'cause British women have amazingly hot accents. Well, some do anyway. Mmmmm :fluffle:.

And you base your answer on that? :rolleyes:

You first. What will you do with the chip dip dripping out of your sphincter?

Since that has nothing to do with this debate, I'm ignoring it. However you have no excuse to ignore my question so answer it.

And you base your answer on that? :rolleyes:
Yes. Yes I do.

Since that has nothing to do with this debate, I'm ignoring it. However you have no excuse to ignore my question so answer it.

There is no debate, which is why I'm ignoring your question. As I have posted repeatedly, the whole question of the US fighting a war with Britain is asinine. Neither the American people nor the Brits would stand for it.

It makes less sense than shitting guacamole

Yeah, cuz the Russians weren't getting their arses kicked by the Germans until the US stepped in and helped out on the Western front. How many Russian lives lost again?
Educate yourself on History. The Eastern front had way more divisions than both the African and Western Front.

52 percent of all Germans died on that front.

The turning point of the War which was Stalingrad happeened before Americans set a foot on any European soil not British owned and faced real German opposition.

Educate yourself on History. The Eastern front had way more divisions than both the African and Western Front.

52 percent of all Germans died on that front.

The turning point of the War which was Stalingrad happeened before Americans set a foot on any European soil not British owned and faced real German opposition.

Take it from a history teacher. Innsbrucklia is right.

Educate yourself on History. The Eastern front had way more divisions than both the African and Western Front.

52 percent of all Germans died on that front.

The turning point of the War which was Stalingrad happeened before Americans set a foot on any European soil not British owned and faced real German opposition.

Agreed to this post in its entirety.

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 truly who you say you are, you, of all people, should know the capabilities and limitations of your navy.

The last time the US Army has won over the Royal Army was when the US had a french bodyguard... ( Yorktown ).

coughNewOrleanswarof1812cough

Britain, you filthy colonials!

If you are truly who you say you are, you, of all people, should know the capabilities and limitations of your navy.

I think we already debunked the fact that he isnt who he claims to be.

I think we already debunked the fact that he isnt who he claims to be.

Considering that his profile says he's the First Sea Lord, I'd say that his arguments are quite debauched.

And he misspelled nuclear.

Considering that his profile says he's the First Sea Lord, I'd say that his arguments are quite debauched.

And he misspelled nuclear.

Yea he did.

On top of that, he has yet to provide proof to what I asked him to prove. Twice actually.

Is there any posible scenario you can imagine where the UK would launch an attack on the United States? I can't.

The U.S. has not been attacked by any country in 65 years.

I can think of several scenarios which are not very likely to occur where the end result is an almost certain attack on the US by Great Britain.


US assassinates the royal family and publicly boasts about doing it.
US launches a surprise nuclear strike on london.
US destroys ever major port in Great Britain with a surprise cruise missle attack.
US detonates an EMP weapon over the UK.


Plenty of scenarios would result in that; they just have an almost zero chance of ever occurring in the current political and economic climate.




But with this in mind you are missing the point of hypothetical scenarios. The point is NOT to assess the likelihood of scenarios, but to assess their consequences upon the world.

You might be willing to assert that Alexander the Great losing his war with the Greeks is more likely to occur than a war between the US and the UK. But does that make said change anymore world/history changing than a war between the UK and the US. I can almost guarantee that if the UK and the US were to go to war right now that the future of this world would undergo a massive alteration.

And therein lay the fun in considering hypothetical scenarios.

NT

I don't think even dubya is crazy enough to do any of those listed things. :)

But with this in mind you are missing the point of hypothetical scenarios. The point is NOT to assess the likelihood of scenarios, but to assess their consequences upon the world.

NT

However, your hypothetical scenarios, because they are so wildly unrealistic, have a fundamental flaw.

Because they do not posit a realistic reason for the war it is impossible to determine the public reaction to this fictional fight. Public reaction, especially in democratic societies, make all the difference between victory and defeat.

However, your hypothetical scenarios, because they are so wildly unrealistic, have a fundamental flaw.

Because they do not posit a realistic reason for the war it is impossible to determine the public reaction to this fictional fight. Public reaction, especially in democratic societies, make all the difference between victory and defeat.


I disagree with your assertion that because the causes are unlikely to occur it is impossible to gauge public reaction to the ensuing fight. In fact I think it's very easy to gauge public reaction to just about ever cause I listed above. The US makes a ton of enemies really fast, and the UK gains a bunch of temporary allies.


And so while I agree with your latter assertion, your former seems fundamentally flawed.

NT

I'm bumping this because I'm drunk.

Why not sue me?

If America invaded, they might eventually win. But by then the British infrastructure would have been entirely destroyed, the entire British population would have fought to the death, several US Administrations would have been politically murdered by the continuation of the war, and the US Military and Economy would have been crippled.:sniper:

Either that or Britain will do the civilize thing and cave when the war is lost and behave civily.

Either that or Britain will do the civilize thing and cave when the war is lost and behave civily.
Yous eriously think the British public would do that?

Yous eriously think the British public would do that?

Was I talking about the British Public?

This thread is pointless. America would win in 5 minutes. Some arsey anti-war people would go on TV, Americans would get depressed, George Bush would give Tony Blair a sham trial. Americans would "bring the boys home" and everything would be back to normal. Nothing would change.

Was I talking about the British Public?
From the Brtiain I was presuming you where. i servirly doubt Britian would cave in what with the Blitz spirt and all. British people are INCREDABLY porud and patriotic. Our leaders would be swept from office the moment they admitted defeat.

I can think of several scenarios which are not very likely to occur where the end result is an almost certain attack on the US by Great Britain.


US assassinates the royal family and publicly boasts about doing it.
US launches a surprise nuclear strike on london.
US destroys ever major port in Great Britain with a surprise cruise missle attack.
US detonates an EMP weapon over the UK.Those all sound like things that would happen when the US has already started some kind of war against the UK, not precursors for a UK attack on the US.

Counter-attack, maybe... And the postulated scenario was one of the US attacking the UK.

My own scenario assumed a mass (conventional, not nuclear) cruise-missile first-strike against the UK (not just ports) as the likely tactics to mark the start of hostilities, I must admit, but specifically excluded nuclear strikes and assasination (of government figures, though, I had assumed) as being outside the scope of the brief. (Nukes as a first strike sound like overkill. Assasination instead of war would probably be dressed up as a non-American job, at least at first sight. EMP attack I never considered, but hovers between the stupitiy of the landed-nuke option and the more sensible war-initiation of cruise missiles, dependng on whether used as part of the latter or not.


But anyway, let's think up some reasons why the US might have done one of the above things. Why it would have considered it necessary to attack the UK. Obviously int he current atmosphere, it'd be unthinkable, but how about...

Situation A:
The British public manage to inherit a "V For Vendetta"-style government. Perhaps all love of the Labour party is lost (a distinct possibility, already), the Conservatives are still out in the cold (another change of leader or two and they could lose all credibility) and some 'cult of personality' (think of a Robert Kilroy-Silk character, but without all the annoying bits that caused his downfall) manages to sneak his way past the LibDems (maybe having had more leadership problems of their own) and both of the main parties to form the next government. He panders to insular and isolationist attitudes within the population, but his foreign policies are crafted to be exactly the opposite of the (perceived) current pandering to the whim of the US, revoking and reversing the Special Relationship between the countries, maybe with a disturbingly complete severence of links with the US.

Situation B:
Further terrorist attacks agsint prominent US property/persons are traced back to individuals who appears to have been supported by the UK. Whether genuinely insulted by the suggestion, or perhaps because it is true (and prompted by a Situation A-style shift in government/policy), the UK refuses to co-operate and allow an 'audit' by US "Intelligence Inspectors" (who would probably be insisting on poking their noses in all kinds of things that the UK intelligence agencies, as with any other, wouldn't want to reveal ...for legitimate reasons or otherwise). Severe misunderstandings set the political tensions along a path whereby a President, perhaps beleagured by domestic pressures arising from the attacks, is much closer to declaring war than the incompetent or improperly-advised Prime Minister realises, and there's no backing down.

Situation C:
Buoyed up by a surge in patriotism, ties to the Commonwealth beng strengthened and tensions ironed out, various political changes at home and abroad, the UK starts to (or appears to start to) 'rebuild' its Empire in some manner. While the US may or may not be the target of British intentions, maybe there's a jittery feeling at the enhanced British presence in Canada and a pre-emptive strike against the 'motherland' is deemed necessary when political efforts fail.

Situation D:
Massive environmental catastrophe of some kind (Yellowstone erupting, Meteroid strike, something else) changes the intrinsic livability of North America. President is driven to extreme measures to beg, borrow or steal territories to house the many displaced citizens that have survived the initial disaster. For whatever reason, it is decided to bring down the UK as the first 'domino' in the planned "America in enforced exile" territory. Or maybe millions of US have already sought sanctuary across the Atlantic but (faced with its own problems arising from the occurance that caused all this) the UK had to forcibly prevent the tide from reaching the UK and the US high-command takes great exception at this.




Note that the above all are all situations in which some of the given scenarios (Canada attacks US in support of the UK, mainland Europe is sympathetic to the UK) might be moot, or even negated. But they all (plausible or implausible in varying quantities) could spark a US invasion. And other parameters might change to make it far from the situation currently envisaged (e.g. weakend US military after environmental catastrophe saps or depletes its available forces, or vastly strengthened UK military if VFV-style government expands military to a comparable size, yet disproportinately powerful quantity by population, as part of its policies).


Oh, and nearly forgot... Situation E:
Some (currently) unforseen technological enhancement shifts the whole dynamics of world power so that the UK is seen as a threat to the US. (Again, this could mean the UK loses the ability to rely upon the allies some assume it would have, but then if it manages to threaten the might US, then perhaps the whole world.

Think of something along the lines of The Mouse That Roared (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/), if you want, but it may not be quite as extreme as that film would have it... ;)

This thread is pointless. America would win in 5 minutes. Some arsey anti-war people would go on TV, Americans would get depressed, George Bush would give Tony Blair a sham trial. Americans would "bring the boys home" and everything would be back to normal. Nothing would change.

Would the US actually win the quickly? There are numeous states who would love nothing more than a pretext to attack the USA, whilst there is the issue of quite how the USA would invade? Beyond progressing the conflict to nucleur warfare, how does the USA effect a landing on British soil, considering the logistical problems of landing troops over a distance of 6000 miles or more?

I don't think even dubya is crazy enough to do any of those listed things. :)

I'm now running a book on how stupid/crazy the Shrub can be. :D

Still drunk.

Still bumping for no good reason.

:rolleyes:

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.

You may come and visit me on board my ship if you wish when we are next stationed near to you, I am most likely to be stationed in Portsmouth next. Also it is possible to misspell words if typing quickly.

You may come and visit me on board my ship if you wish when we are next stationed near to you, I am most likely to be stationed in Portsmouth next. Also it is possible to misspell words if typing quickly.

Then maybe you will be able to provide answers and proof to the points that I asked you too. Continue to dodge and I'll continue to call your BullCrap.

Cmdr Stockings (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1247)

Looks like enough information on the Ark Royals CO to fake being him online.

Goshdae, shut up, get a job, and stop making the Royal Navy look bad.

Goshdae: Unless you can satisfactorily prove that you are indeed CO of the Ark Royal, I am thinking about inquiring about "your" service record, and/or contacting CO Stockings via email and asking some questions. Come clean now, and nobody will blame you, no flames, and no inquiries. There is a law against impersonating officers, and "you" may have just broken it. Please, who are you, and can you provide proof?

I'd personally like to see how this resolves. Impersonating an officer is no small issue in my book.

NT

there are many interesting things in this thread...

but i think the original subject may have run it's course, no?

unless, of course, anyone has more to say on the subject of an invasion of the UK by the USA.

there are many interesting things in this thread...

but i think the original subject may have run it's course, no?

unless, of course, anyone has more to say on the subject of an invasion of the UK by the USA.

Doesn't look like it, does it?

In the meantime, this is the greatest song ever written (http://www.arnocorps.com/songs/predator.html).