NationStates Jolt Archive

I think, on a purely military scale, no other factors involved, the UK would win. The US army is bigger, but we are better equipped, better trained and have the good ol' British fighting spirit old boy :p

But overall, the US would probably win, cos they have a better manufacturing industry. the only way we would win is if the EU helped. :rolleyes:

No one would win. Lots of people would die, for no purpose whatsoever.

I think, on a purely military scale, no other factors involved, the UK would win. The US army is bigger, but we are better equipped, better trained and have the good ol' British fighting spirit old boy :p

But overall, the US would probably win, cos they have a better manufacturing industry. the only way we would win is if the EU helped. :rolleyes:

America would own us by any measure. They have better aircraft, a vastly more powerful navy and out number our soldiers around 10 to 1.

The US would win, but these countries will most likely never fight each other again.

Death and blood....! Yay!

U.S.A. Quack

China would win, maybe Mars.

I disagree while the american navy may well be larger and more powerful the size of their airforce and army wouldn't come into it as there would be no way for them to get those forces in place and so making an invasion of the uk very difficault. As for the UK invading the US, we wouldn't stand a chance.

They have better aircraft, a vastly more powerful navy and out number our soldiers around 10 to 1. So did the Nazis, but we still won :p

Just when you thought it was safe to return to NS:G....... detailed military analysis of fictional wars, yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!

And Philosophy is right; war sucks, people die.

EDIT>> Oooh, oooh, forgot comparisons with WW2, then arguments following on from there discussing why the US did/didn't save Europe from Nazis.

So did the Nazis, but we still won :p

And I thought the Nazis were beaten by an international force that outnumbered them. How silly of me.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
god save our gracious queen

uk definately

*waves his wang in everyones faces and leaves*

Poland.

And I thought the Nazis were beaten by an international force that outnumbered them. How silly of me.

Yes they were, but I meant about the aircraft. I forgot to get rid of the army bit

I disagree while the american navy may well be larger and more powerful the size of their airforce and army wouldn't come into it as there would be no way for them to get those forces in place and so making an invasion of the uk very difficault. As for the UK invading the US, we wouldn't stand a chance.

How would there not be a way to get them in place? Would we even need the army? I mean, ignoring the "I NOOK JOO!!!111!1!!" factor, plenty of normal bombs...

britain!

Yes they were, but I meant about the aircraft. I forgot to get rid of the army bit

Oh. :p

Israel, of course.

Duh.

I think, on a purely military scale, no other factors involved, the UK would win. The US army is bigger, but we are better equipped, better trained and have the good ol' British fighting spirit old boy :p

You want spirit? *chants loudly while waving old glory*: USA! USA! USA! USA!

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never will be slaves.
god save our gracious queen

uk definately

Well, even if the army were defeated, I'm sure you'd think of a way to drive out the invaders. :rolleyes:

How would there not be a way to get them in place? Would we even need the army? I mean, ignoring the "I NOOK JOO!!!111!1!!" factor, plenty of normal bombs...

Air power alone never wins a war. you need the troops to back it up.

I think, on a purely military scale, no other factors involved, the UK would win. The US army is bigger, but we are better equipped, better trained and have the good ol' British fighting spirit old boy :p

But overall, the US would probably win, cos they have a better manufacturing industry. the only way we would win is if the EU helped. :rolleyes:

rofl. seroiusly? i think i agree with the people predictiong mass destruction and no particular outcome.

Air power alone never wins a war. you need the troops to back it up.

*shrug* Fair enough, how exactly do you plan on stopping the troops then?

in most wars u.s.a outnumbered or were bigger than they're enemies so its not really ol'glory , britain was winning the war against the nazi's we were slowing driving them out, america only worked to supply us with food

in most wars u.s.a outnumbered or were bigger than they're enemies so its not really ol'glory

And that's going to help the UK by...

Has anyone actually looked at the state of the British armed forces recently? You'd better be hoping for some sort of resistance campaign against the victorious US occupier, because there's no way we'd even be able to put up a token resistance.

Has anyone actually looked at the state of the British armed forces recently? You'd better be hoping for some sort of resistance campaign against the victorious US occupier, because there's no way we'd even be able to put up a token resistance.

Its Tony Blair, not putting any money into it. The money's not going anywhere its needed! :headbang: :rolleyes: the NHS is self destructing, but the money's not getting to where its needed. But anyway, lets stay on topic :p

*shrug* Fair enough, how exactly do you plan on stopping the troops then?
We've still got our coastal pillboxes from World War Two, and we can uparm them with anti-sea missiles.

Although I reckon we'd lose, after much, much resistance. We'd fight to the last. Especially the Scots.

And that's going to help the UK by...
Making your boats easier to sink due to the weight of people on board :p

Let's see, the US military has the better weaponry, more troops. And your claim that British troops are better trained and equipped is just simply incorrect. And the old fighting spirit swings in advantage to the US, think back to the Revolutionary war(and the fact we are much more willing to fight).

Especially the Scots.

hmm, i dont know, they might rather be under US rule than british

britain!

i got nothing from that link, but i did find out from an ad that theres a new Elder Scrolls Oblivion expansion coming out! were you can make your own faction! YAY! :D

hmm, i dont know, they might rather be under US rule than british
Hahahahahahaha... no.

What kind of war?

Total, unlimited war? The US nukes UK, with or without sustaining a few hits itself.

What's the circumstances of this war? The US trying to invade but not destroy the UK? How's the moral support for both countries?

The US lost strategically in Vietnam, despite winning on pretty much any tactical standpoint. Because it did not accomplish its goal. Depending on the US goal, the UK could do the same.

In general I'd say the US has more raw power and would win in any total or attrition based scenario. But it's hard without any specifics, because this is just very unrealistic from a cultural, political and economic standpoint.

why would america attack one of its states?

in most wars u.s.a outnumbered or were bigger than they're enemies so its not really ol'glory , britain was winning the war against the nazi's we were slowing driving them out, america only worked to supply us with food

Actually most of the work against the Nazis was made by the USSR and even in the places where Britain was making ground (ie: Africa) it was backed by US. troops. And of course after the war without US money and aid Britain and rest of western Europe would have fallen to communism and the USSR.

Let's see, the US military has the better weaponry, more troops. And your claim that British troops are better trained and equipped is just simply incorrect. And the old fighting spirit swings in advantage to the US, think back to the Revolutionary war(and the fact we are much more willing to fight).

britain was busy conquering the world to bother with amercia besides you had help form the french , britain controlled around 36million sqaure miles or kilometres thats the biggest empire yet. britain controlled 500million people thats the most by one empire so far , hummm i wonder who would win?

this link should work

Let's see, the US military has the better weaponry, more troops. And your claim that British troops are better trained and equipped is just simply incorrect. And the old fighting spirit swings in advantage to the US, think back to the Revolutionary war(and the fact we are much more willing to fight).

Our troops are much better trained, in the world rankings (which I can't seem to find) the UK came 3rd with germany and someone else above them (can't remember the who the other one was) and the US only came 5th.

Actually most of the work against the Nazis was made by the USSR and even in the places where Britain was making ground (ie: Africa) it was backed by US. troops.
US equipment certainly, but we were doing OK in Africa with just Commonwealth troops.

the places where Britain was making ground (ie: Africa) it was backed by US. troops. .

Not very well, El Alemein? Nearly all British, Canadian or Australian troops in that. And we still won whilst outnumbered :)

And of course after the war without US money and aid Britain and rest of western Europe would have fallen to communism and the USSR

West Germany maybe, not France and Britain. Financially they were pretty much crippled, but we wouldnt have fallen to communism

i got nothing from that link, but i did find out from an ad that theres a new Elder Scrolls Oblivion expansion coming out! were you can make your own faction! YAY! :D

Thats going to blow up every computer on the face of the earth because of the power needed to play it:eek:

why would america attack one of its states?

what do u mean one of its states??

Not very well, El Alemein? Nearly all British, Canadian or Australian troops in that. And we still won whilst outnumbered :)

Not a significant amount of U.S. troops of course but still some..:rolleyes:

West Germany maybe, not France and Britain. Financially they were pretty much crippled, but we wouldnt have fallen to communism
You couldn't fight the cold war without the U.S.'s help, you were financially crippled and eventually you would fall to communism.

britain was busy conquering the world to bother with amercia

That seems like a rather foolish oversight.

"Oh, you can have that huge continent with ridiculously massive gobs of land and resources. We're too busy with New Zealand!"

That seems like a rather foolish oversight.

"Oh, you can have that huge continent with ridiculously massive gobs of land and resources. We're too busy with New Zealand!"

If that hasn't changed, it should be fairly simply to win. We'll beat them at Tea Time!

what do u mean one of its states??

you do thier wars, they repay you be shooting you and blowing up your helicopters. they practically own you.

I wouldn't bother in keeping the states i mean i'd rather keep canada and new zealand since the states offered little to the empire , britain was in no need of resources then and still doesn't

you do thier wars, they repay you be shooting you and blowing up your helicopters. they practically own you.

No, they practically own Tony Blair. Most people from the UK hate (or at least dislike) america

That seems like a rather foolish oversight.

"Oh, you can have that huge continent with ridiculously massive gobs of land and resources. We're too busy with New Zealand!"

Don't forget third world nations such as India and those african countries.

I wouldn't bother in keeping the states i mean i'd rather keep canada and new zealand since the states offered little to the empire , britain was in no need of resources then and still doesn't

LITTLE TO THE EMPIRE? The american colonies were, at the time, the most prosperous of all of britains colonies.

i don't hate america i hate the states OF america , theres loads of decent countrys in america but the united states aren't besides the u.s owes everything it has to britain

Poland!

there was more to be had for the empire in asia and africa , why waste man power chasing something less worthwhile

Don't forget third world nations such as India and those african countries.

Do you have any idea how much wealth Britain took out of the asian subcontinent? It was more than worth our while.

No, they practically own Tony Blair. Most people from the UK hate (or at least dislike) america

did or did you not go into iraq before tony blair? veitnam?

Don't forget third world nations such as India and those african countries.
Which were also incredibly rich in natural resources. The US was more trouble than it was worth particularly if they weren't going to pay taxes to defend themselves from being taken over by the french. i mean anyone who'd put money above Frenchness doesn't deserve to be part of the British Empire.

Trilby63;11969834']*waves his wang in everyones faces and leaves*

You did NOT just do that! :eek:

britain is far more popular than the u.s nowadays, the u.s has been screwing up all over the world for such a long time nobody likes them.

If the US, weren't already busy with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The USA would dominate in the war.

Off the top of my head, here's why.

1. Network-Centric Warfare. Their information capabilities are unmatched to any place in the world. What does that all mean? It means their goal is to create a war fighting system that can deliver information about where the enemy is, how many, how strong etc, before the enemy even knows about it. I have no doubt the UK military is highly capable and quick to deploy. The fact is, the USA is just faster. Not only this, they're support network is huge and is expanding rapidly. Any country who wants to go head to head in a conventional war against the United States is doomed to fail. They will out deploy you, out gun you, and outsmart you in every way they can, and the scary thing is; they're getting better.

2. Upcoming U.S. Military innovations If given a hospitable and good economic climate, the USA will dominate in upcoming military innovation. Things that use to be science fiction will be reality in a matter a few decades. A) Robotic Vehicles with automated defense systems. It's still in the development stage, but once developed and in full production, it would signal a change in the way ground warfare is fought. B) Full tactical control; they can now know the precise location of every one of their units at all times in real time (without the need for air command centers or anything to keep track of their units). They have that capability to a certain extent now, but it'll only get better. C) light bending cloaks of invisibility, smart and lighter body armor (better than Kevlar) that are in development or on the horizon.

There has been an immense paradigm shift in the way the U.S. fights conventional warfare. Their new philosophy is to not even let there be a fight. They want to destroy the enemy before it even has time to react.

Without this capability however, The USA will just have to rely on the almost archaic methods of information and methods of where to deploy troops. So basically, on the ground they're no different than a UK soldier. If they fought without the support of Network Centric Warfare, they're just as vulnerable as any other soldier.

But in my mind, hands down, USA wins.

LITTLE TO THE EMPIRE? The american colonies were, at the time, the most prosperous of all of britains colonies.

um actually, at the time of America being colonised, britain didnt have an empire. America was effectively Britains first empire. Africa, India an all that were the second empire if you think about it :)

there was more to be had for the empire in asia and africa , why waste man power chasing something less worthwhile

its a bit silly boasting about the empire, complain that the germans tried the same thing. there is no pride in being unhonourable jerks.

did or did you not go into iraq before tony blair? veitnam?

Tony Blair was definatly in power in 2003. Unless you mean 1991 when we never actually invaded Iraq?

"Not very well, El Alemein? Nearly all British, Canadian or Australian troops in that. And we still won whilst outnumbered "

Actually el alamein we outnumbered the germans, considerably, both times.

why is this even a question? british troops might be better trained than the average squadie but the USMC alone is probably the british armies equal in training as well as size. when you factor in the rest of the army plus the navy and the airforce......

did or did you not go into iraq before tony blair? veitnam?

Not in the first Gulf war we didn't, that I know of. Vietnam, nope. and in the second gulf war, the people were against it, but they went anyway. bloody politicians...

i don't hate america i hate the states OF america , theres loads of decent countrys in america but the united states aren't besides the u.s owes everything it has to britain

How so? You got us into WWI and II. You screwed up the middle east. You fought 2 wars against us. You unofficially supported the confederacy and even sold them some of the most powerful ships at the time. I'd say thats pretty much opposition if I've ever heard of it.

How so? You got us into WWI and II. You screwed up the middle east. You fought 2 wars against us. You unofficially supported the confederacy and even sold them some of the most powerful ships at the time. I'd say thats pretty much opposition if I've ever heard of it.

No, Germany got you into WW1 & 2. 2 Wars? i thought it was just the War of independance.

oh, and you funded the IRA in the 70's and 80's.

more than a third of the world hates americans , we only economically screwed up the middle east the u.s did the politics , the confederacy should of won anyway.

No, Germany got you into WW1 & 2. 2 Wars? i thought it was just the War of independance.

oh, and you funded the IRA in the 70's and 80's.

Actually it was mostly British propaganda that convinced the U.S. into war. And the IRA were freedom fighters not terrorists. (sarcasm....please don't hurt me)

britain would have never fallen to communism... everyone in europe except britain scandinavia and iceland would have fallne to communism though... including france (which in between the wars was in danger of a civil war between socialists and nationalists over issues such as the Spanish Civil War)

more than a third of the world hates americans , we only economically screwed up the middle east the u.s did the politics , the confederacy should of won anyway.

So, a nation with a backward, rascist economy with backward, rascist views should have won the Civil war? I was born in Texas and that doesn't even make sense to me. So what, the British could have another land grab in the Americas?

Don't forget third world nations such as India and those african countries.

True at the time there was lots to be had there as well. But obviously no real room for British expansion in terms of population and land, unlike the potential with the Americas. I'm just saying it's kinda foolish for CE here to marginalize the economic lure, even at the time, of the New World in favour of a couple dead-end diamond minds and short-lived spice trade.

Russia would win. Russia always wins.

britain would have never fallen to communism... everyone in europe except britain scandinavia and iceland would have fallne to communism though... including france (which in between the wars was in danger of a civil war between socialists and nationalists over issues such as the Spanish Civil War)

Um, actually Finland was practically owned by the USSR.

the IRA were freedom fighters not terrorists. (sarcasm....please don't hurt me)

depends what faction.
provos good. rira bad.

Um, actually Finland was practically owned by the USSR.

uhm... yes of course... that's why the russians called for a truce and peace agreement even as they were marching with no problems towards berlin...

Um, actually Finland was practically owned by the USSR.
You have to tell me more about that. It sounds fascinating.

depends what faction.
provos good. rira bad.
How on earth do you figure that?

Germany in a stunning blitzkrieg that would finally overmatch all of Europe, and the Luftwaffe would destroy the RAF this time.

A little bit later the German protesters would chant in America's street to let German soldiers into America freely. When asked to stop, they would bring up the constitutional amendments and continue chanting.

Cause remeber, in America you can make fun of her, your protected by her constitution.

Right, this is what will happen! Pressuming the EU provides industry for the UK to keep going of course. The Royal Navy would gather in one place in western side of the British isles hugging the coastline. By being close to land the RN will have RAF support as well as Royal Navy aircraft. Coupled with ship anti aircraft defence systems this will provide good air cover. But the US navy being a little larger will spread out and suround the British isles. By this stage most men between 16 and 45 ish will be in the armned forces providing home guard (Dads Army) The Americans may gain air power over small areas and laumch an invasion. Being a small country sevral million men could be fightiing the invasion force within two days. The Americans will fail and will have to return to the US to pick up more troops. this scenareo excludes nukes as in real life Britain will probs threaten to nuke the US if one soldier lands on our soil and so when we nuke they nuke us and everyone dies.:sniper:

How on earth do you figure that?

dont like the idea of killing civilians. if somebody wants to work in the military, in a foreign land, they cant complain if they get bomb. provos didnt start the 'war'. besides they have given up most of thier weapons now. they are the leading force in trying to fix the problems.

dont like the idea of killing civilians. if somebody wants to work in the military, in a foreign land, they cant complain if they get bomb. provos didnt start the 'war'. besides they have given up most of thier weapons now. they are the leading force in trying to fix the problems.

If the PIRA didn't like killing civilians so much, how did they end up killing so many of them?

America has abouyt 500 nukes that are known, from land, sea and air. They're already working on space, what chance would we have?

Only tiny chance UK would have would be to try and smuggle nuclear weapons into the USA and detonate them in various important places.

Only tiny chance UK would have would be to try and smuggle nuclear weapons into the USA and detonate them in various important places.

And to be honest if that was enough to break their resolve as opposed to just totally flattening the UK in response then they deserve to lose.

Cornwall would win.

Because most americans probably don't know where Cornwall is, and most british don't want to admit that they're connected to us.

Only tiny chance UK would have would be to try and smuggle nuclear weapons into the USA and detonate them in various important places.

Wouldnt we just fire all our nukes at the same time from our subs? Surely atleast one would get through espessually if our subs were close to the US

depends what faction.
provos good. rira bad.

No.
They killed a lot of innocents.
While civilians often die in war, the Provos have actively targeted civilians, e.g. the Kingsmill Massacre.

And to be honest if that was enough to break their resolve as opposed to just totally flattening the UK in response then they deserve to lose.

Wouldn't tell them it was us:) Tell them it's China and see at least one major power if not two go down the pan, leading to the 2nd British Empire etc etc:cool:

Wouldn't tell them it was us:) Tell them it's China and see at least one major power if not two go down the pan, leading to the 2nd British Empire etc etc:cool:

haha lol i like that! Only we would need to find a way of making ourselves rich like a second industrial revolution or something like that.

You have to tell me more about that. It sounds fascinating.

its called the agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Friendship%2C_Cooperation%2C_and_Mutual_Assistance
it made the soviets almost dominate finland after wwII.

um actually, at the time of America being colonised, britain didnt have an empire. America was effectively Britains first empire. Africa, India an all that were the second empire if you think about it :)

Well right before the American revolution they had begun empire building.

haha lol i like that! Only we would need to find a way of making ourselves rich like a second industrial revolution or something like that.

Already happened...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_industrial_revolution
It would be the third.

its called the agreement of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_of_Friendship%2C_Cooperation%2C_and_Mutual_Assistance
it made the soviets almost dominate finland after wwII.Sorry, no. Finland was 'dominated' by the Allied Control Commission, if anything, after the war (British, Americans, Russians).

I trust you read all the links in the page you posted, no?
It was a non-aggression agreement of a kind Soviet Union made with it satellites, true, but the devil is in the details. The implementation of the agreement was open for interpretation. More importantly, Finnish interpretation. See articles 1,2,3 and 4 of the pact in full (that wiki page leaves alot to be desired); "Finland is a fully sovereign nation" + "There's no automatic consultations in case of an attack" + "UN sanctioned action should override the agreement" + "non-aggression pact". What would you have done? Prepared to take the Soviets on for the 3rd time? The agreement was a masterful piece of diplomacy.

Sorry, no. Finland was 'dominated' by the Allied Control Commission, if anything, after the war (British, Americans, Russians).

I trust you read all the links in the page you posted, no?
It was a non-aggression agreement of a kind Soviet Union made with it satellites, true, but the devil is in the details. The implementation of the agreement was open for interpretation. More importantly, Finnish interpretation. See articles 1,2,3 and 4 of the pact in full (that wiki page leaves alot to be desired); "Finland is a fully sovereign nation" + "There's no automatic consultations in case of an attack" + "UN sanctioned action should override the agreement" + "non-aggression pact". What would you have done? Prepared to take the Soviets on for the 3rd time? The agreement was a masterful piece of diplomacy.

No control? I trust you read the link from the library of congress. They had to deliver goods to the USSR as a form of reperations. and theres no fourth link.

Link 3: Reparations were another burden for Finland. From the failure of the reparations demands imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, the Soviets had drawn the lesson that, to be effective, reparations should take the form of deliveries of goods in kind, rather than of financial payments. As a result, the Finns were obligated to make deliveries of products, mainly machine goods, cable products, merchant ships, paper, wood pulp, and other wood products. About one-third of the goods included as reparations came from Finland's traditionally strong forest industries, and the remainder came from the shipbuilding and the metallurgical industries, which were as yet only partially developed in Finland. The reparations paid from 1944 to 1952 amounted to an annual average of more than 2 percent of Finland's gross national product (GNP). The reparations were delivered according to a strict schedule, with penalties for late shipments. As the earnestness of the Finns in complying with the Soviet demands became apparent, the Soviets relented somewhat by extending the payment deadline from 1950 to 1952, but they still prevented Finland from participating in the Marshall Plan (European Recovery Program). The United States played an important role, nonetheless, by mediating the extension of financial credits of more than US$100 million from its Export- Import Bank to help Finland rebuild its economy and meet its reparations obligations punctually.

Sorry, no. Finland was 'dominated' by the Allied Control Commission, if anything, after the war (British, Americans, Russians).

this is also from the library of congress link.
"The Allied Control Commission, established by the 1944 armistice to oversee Finland's internal affairs until the final peace treaty was concluded in 1947, was dominated by the Soviets."

Keyword: Dominated by the soviets.

Russia would win. Russia always wins.

Too true, too true.

In a fight to the death I think 'win' would be very generous...

Technically the UK could be said to 'win' as they will only lose 60,000,000 while the US will suffer 300,000,000...

scorched earth and all...

The real winners would be the first to re-settle the raidiocative wastelands

All that about whether the American colonies were valuable to Britain, with someone saying that they were the most profitable part of the Empire... well, combined, all thirteen were less profitable than Jamaica alone, so that should put it into context, no?

And as to nuclear war between the UK and US, I'm wondering, would the US have some way to thwart any attempt by the UK? What's the arrangement with Britain's nukes, these days, and their delivery systems? Does anyone really know how independent Britain's arsenal is of the US? How deep is the co-operation and dependence?

I don't doubt that Britain could have chosen to maintain an entirely independent arsenal, at great expense, but I don't think it's exactly that simple, is it?

I imagine that such a conflict would be resolved in some manner and by some means that we would never have seen coming. Something covert, something complicated, something covered-up for the next couple of generations afterwards.

Otherwise, it could just go on and on and on. Nobody's really ready to knock-out the other on day one, and after that, yes, the US would start rolling-out their mysterious super-weapons and what have you, but the British, given that they'd surely survive the start of the war (unless it was immediately nuclear), would surprise most people with the weird and wonderful/terrible contraptions that they'd roll-out. Britain's been on the innovative front for centuries without ever dropping far off the pace, and there'd no doubt be some gimmicks to thwart newfangled American methods.

If decades-bankrupt Yugoslavia can find ways to down Nighthawks and B-52s and render Apache gunships impotent, Uncle Sam at least wouldn't have it all his way against the UK.

Novelty aside, it really would suck, hey?

But I can't help wondering what opportunities the rest of the world would take, with the US and UK totally distracted. The Balkans would probably kick-off, again, and Germany and France would likely have to dive-in to counter Russian intervention there, and gods only know what'd happen in the ME.

How so? You got us into WWI and II. You screwed up the middle east. You fought 2 wars against us. You unofficially supported the confederacy and even sold them some of the most powerful ships at the time. I'd say thats pretty much opposition if I've ever heard of it.

Unofficially supported the Confederacy?

Unofficially supported the Confederacy?

They didn't give money or military aid but supported them in the sense that they would rather the Confederacy have won than the Union and of course sold those ships to them.
heres one of the most famous of the ships:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSS_Alabama

Tell that to the people of Lancashire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_famine

"...the vast progress which you have made in the short space of twenty months fills us with hope that every stain on your freedom will shortly be removed, and that the erasure of that foul blot on civilisation and Christianity - chattel slavery - during your presidency, will cause the name of Abraham Lincoln to be honoured and revered by posterity. We are certain that such a glorious consummation will cement Great Britain and the United States in close and enduring regards."

Tell that to the people of Lancashire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_famine

But the government still backed the confederacy. I wasn't talking about the people. In fact most of the common people backed the Union in the war.

Because the CSS Alabama, and other 'blockade runner' ships were built in British ports by private companies, you've concluded that the British government supported the Confederacy?

The British government had no official stance until The Emancipation Declaration, whereupon they announced their neutrality.

America has abouyt 500 nukes that are known, from land, sea and air. They're already working on space, what chance would we have?

Only 500 nukes?
You, my friend, are way off!
The United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational, and of these only a certain number are deployed at any given time. These break down into 5,021 "strategic" warheads, 1,050 of which are deployed on land-based missile systems (all on Minuteman ICBMs), 1,955 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,016 on submarines (Ohio class), according to a 2006 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.[2] Of 500 "tactical"/"nonstrategic" weapons, around 100 are Tomahawk cruise missiles and 400 are B61 bombs. A few hundred of the B61 bombs are located at eight bases in six European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the United Kingdom), the only such weapons in forward deployment.[3]

Around 4,225 warheads have been removed from deployment but have remained stockpiled as a "responsible reserve force" on inactive status. Under the May 2002 Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions, the U.S. pledged to reduce its stockpile to 2,200 operationally deployed warheads by 2012, and in June 2004 the Department of Energy announced that "almost half" of these warheads would be retired for dismantlement by then.[4]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States)

Way down the bottom under Current Status

As for the OP I do not see how Britain could win a war vs the U.S.
To win a war I assume you would have to invade and occupy the United States.

Even without the army there is nearly a gun for every man woman and child in the U.S. owned by private citizens.
Occupying the United States of America would be damn near impossible.

Because the CSS Alabama, and other 'blockade runner' ships were built in British ports by private companies, you've concluded that the British government supported the Confederacy?

The British government had no official stance until The Emancipation Declaration, whereupon they announced their neutrality.

Not just that, read up on the trent affair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trent_Affair#British_plans_for_war_with_the_Union

Palestine

China.

But really, the US would easily squash the UK in a total war scenario. In a situtation like a colonial war or something, like the war between US and UK takes place over sees over a "colony" like oh lets just say the philipines, then it would be about a 60-40 odds with the US in favor.

I think, on a purely military scale, no other factors involved, the UK would win. The US army is bigger, but we are better equipped, better trained and have the good ol' British fighting spirit old boy :p

But overall, the US would probably win, cos they have a better manufacturing industry. the only way we would win is if the EU helped. :rolleyes:
Pft. British fighting spirit my flat foot. Where was your "fighting spirit" at Lexing and Concord, or a Yorktown?

American (& French, Spanish, etc.) fighting spirit FTW!

:p

Not just that, read up on the trent affair: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trent_Affair#British_plans_for_war_with_the_Union

I'm sorry, I don't see that that makes your case. A Union ship stops and boards a British mail runner and seizes two of it's passengers? It was a neutral ship! They had no legal right to do that and it was always going to provoke a reaction.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that members of the British government (and indeed the population at large) sympathised with the Confederate cause, but to suggest that the government, as a whole, actively supported (unnofficially or not) the Confederacy is a bit of a stretch.

Britain did not even object to the seizure of British ships running the blockade.


Source:http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A912386

Ireland would win.

As well as Chuck Norris.

Pft. British fighting spirit my flat foot. Where was your "fighting spirit" at Lexing and Concord, or a Yorktown?



why are all the americans convinced they could win just cos they won the war of independance? you caught us off guard, tahts all.

Look at the second world war for our fighting spirit. we were nearly bombed and starved to death, but no-one wanted to give up. In fact, we were MORE willing to fight.

why are all the americans convinced they could win just cos they won the war of independance? you caught us off guard, tahts all.

Well, if you're off gaurd so often, should be easy.

I think, on a purely military scale, no other factors involved, the UK would win. The US army is bigger, but we are better equipped, better trained and have the good ol' British fighting spirit old boy :p

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. The British army is short on equipment, de-moralised, and is lacking in good recruits. Besides, their regime is outdated-with higher ranking officers coming from public schools rather than being chosen on the basis of merit. Their technology is way outdated, with the fact that the last major surge in military investment was in the early 1980s. The de-moralisation and lack of motivation of the British army rather reflects the sorry state of British society.

The US army by contrast constantly benefits from generous federal investment in technology and in new equipment. Their is in general better public confidence in America's economy and society than in the 1970s. This should therefore mean that those willing to fight in the US army will have better motivation and morale.

No one would win. Lots of people would die, for no purpose whatsoever.

Well said....why would two allies attck each other:confused:

Hypothetically, the US would win because they have more resources and more areas to bomb than the UK does.....but it would depend on which side other countries support, possibly giving the U.K. an adavantage.

A major detriment to the UK would be the fact that they have to import all their ammunition.

As for those calling for the "Home Guard", what would they be armed w/? The US armed them in WWII.

Sounds like wishful thinking to me. The British army is short on equipment, de-moralised, and is lacking in good recruits. Besides, their regime is outdated-with higher ranking officers coming from public schools rather than being chosen on the basis of merit. Their technology is way outdated, with the fact that the last major surge in military investment was in the early 1980s. The de-moralisation and lack of motivation of the British army rather reflects the sorry state of British society.

The US army by contrast constantly benefits from generous federal investment in technology and in new equipment. Their is in general better public confidence in America's economy and society than in the 1970s. This should therefore mean that those willing to fight in the US army will have better motivation and morale.

I'm under the impression that we share an awful lot of our technologies and resources with each other.

Ireland would win.

As well as Chuck Norris.

Ireland couldn't win against an army of rabbits. You need your army to help keep order because the Garda (police) are overwhelmed by the drunken menace that rules the streets. Your society is all pot-happy on alcohol and dope and lounges about on welfare checks and free provisions. Your criminal justice system is the biggest laughing stock in the world. Trying to get your people to get up and fight in a war would be like trying to get hens to march in a neat row.

Well said....why would two allies attck each other:confused:

Hypothetically, the US would win because they have more resources and more areas to bomb than the UK does.....but it would depend on which side other countries support, possibly giving the U.K. an adavantage.

I dont see the US and UK ever at such odds that we actually fight a war against each other again.

I feel safe in assuming that each of us has a detailed plan of attack/defense against the other, though.
Just in case.

Ireland couldn't win against an army of rabbits.

Well, that doesn't say much. The way those rabbits multiply...

A major detriment to the UK would be the fact that they have to import all their ammunition.
We've still got three large arms factories, and it's not like we're somehow incapable of retooling other factories either.
As for those calling for the "Home Guard", what would they be armed w/? The US armed them in WWII.
This time we'd arm them with SLRs and our Lee-Enfields that we still have left.

Both excellent weapons to this day.

Well, that doesn't say much. The way those rabbits multiply...
The way that the Irish do too sort of mitigates this advantage ;)

/Stereotypical ignorant Englander mode

too lazy to see if someone else made this comment...

but someone said something about the US not being able to use the air force...

they apparently forgot about the bases we have in germany.

We've still got three large arms factories, and it's not like we're somehow incapable of retooling other factories either.

Arms or munitions?

This time we'd arm them with SLRs and our Lee-Enfields that we still have left.

So you'ld have about a squad then. :)

Both excellent weapons to this day.

No arguement there.

but someone said something about the US not being able to use the air force...

they apparently forgot about the bases we have in germany.
We've won that one already :p

America would own us by any measure. They have better aircraft, a vastly more powerful navy and out number our soldiers around 10 to 1.

Not when we have conscription... (everyone between the ages 12 and 60 gets a gun...) plus the support of the EU and a bunch of other countries... im sure if someone like the UK+EU declared war on america we'd get help from south america... china... N.Korea... russia maybe?

Putting nukes aside of course... we'd be pwned if they brought out the nukes...

Not when we have conscription... (everyone between the ages 12 and 60 gets a gun...) plus the support of the EU and a bunch of other countries... im sure if someone like the UK+EU declared war on america we'd get help from south america... china... N.Korea... russia maybe?

Putting nukes aside of course... we'd be pwned if they brought out the nukes...

I still want to know where all these guns to arm the civilians are coming from? Especially since the UK needed outside help w/ that previously when they had a war footing manufacturing base.

Arms or munitions?
IIRC, arms, but I think that the Enfield one also produces munitions.
So you'ld have about a squad then. :)
Not at all. We'd have more like a depleted platoon :p

But if we add in the Ensign training rifles, and get our factories producing for home use only (i.e. only really geared towards our climate) then it wouldn't take too long to get something better, methinks.
No arguement there.
Hurrah.

I still want to know where all these guns to arm the civilians are coming from? Especially since the UK needed outside help w/ that previously.
We've got caches of them, and unlike last time, our military spending hasn't been massively curtailed because of our government being extremely poor.

We've won that one already :p

how did you win it? :p

IIRC, arms, but I think that the Enfield one also produces munitions.

I thought they closed. I had read that all munitions were being purchased from Belgium.

Not at all. We'd have more like a depleted platoon :p



But if we add in the Ensign training rifles, and get our factories producing for home use only (i.e. only really geared towards our climate) then it wouldn't take too long to get something better, methinks.[/quote]

Well, thats a little better. :)

Hurrah.

The LE is w/o question one of the best bolt actions.

I thought they closed. I had read that all munitions were being purchased from Belgium.
No, I think we still have 3 open.
Well, thats a little better. :)
Yep :D
The LE is w/o question one of the best bolt actions.
I'd probably say the best.



Not that I think it's even remotely plausible that we could win, mind.

We've got caches of them, and unlike last time, our military spending hasn't been massively curtailed because of our government being extremely poor.

Then why is military spending being massively curtailed? I'm more familiar w/ the Naval cutbacks but either way....

Then why is military spending being massively curtailed? I'm more familiar w/ the Naval cutbacks but either way....
It isn't... the Labour Government put about £3.5 billion extra into military spending...

It isn't... the Labour Government put about £3.5 billion extra into military spending...
Thats what about 7 billion in American dollars?

Thats what about 7 billion in American dollars?
$6.7 billion or summit.

We've won that one already :p

mmm, not exactly. While Germany may not like us very much, they have very close ties to us economically. Not only, but the current Chancellor of Germany is far more sympathetic to the U.S. than any past ones (except for West german ones of course:) .)

I still want to know where all these guns to arm the civilians are coming from? Especially since the UK needed outside help w/ that previously when they had a war footing manufacturing base.

yeah... didnt think that far ahead... im sure there are about 40 million buried somewhere....

mmm, not exactly. While Germany may not like us very much, they have very close ties to us economically. Not only, but the current Chancellor of Germany is far more sympathetic to the U.S. than any past ones (except for West german ones of course:) .)
I still don't think they'd let the US fly planes out and attack us - I think they'd intern all military personnel there from both the UK and US to make sure that their country didn't needlessly get bombed. Again.

yeah... didnt think that far ahead... im sure there are about 40 million buried somewhere....
They've got caches of weapons scattered around - not 40 million, but a fair few.

Putting nukes aside of course... we'd be pwned if they brought out the nukes...

I think it'd be fair to say that both sides would get severely pwnt if nukes were used.

i dunno... if saudi arabia let us, why wouldn't germany?

No, I think we still have 3 open.

You'll have to enlighten me. Looking it up, the RSAF Enfield factory closed in 1988



I'd probably say the best.

BUt no cultural bias right? :) I'ld put it in the same category as the Springfield, K98 mauser, and the Mosin-Nagant



Not that I think it's even remotely plausible that we could win, mind.

Pretty much. I just like asking questions.

You'll have to enlighten me. Looking it up, the RSAF Enfield factory closed in 1988
Hmm, you might well be right, actually, it's been ages since I checked.

*checks*

Bloody Thatcher!
BUt no cultural bias right? :) I'ld put it in the same category as the Springfield, K98 mauser, and the Mosin-Nagant
Springfield and Mauser - clips not big enough.
Mosin-Nagant - not accurate enough and clip too small.
Pretty much. I just like asking questions.
And I like answering them!

Here is why the UK would never win, one on one:

The F-22 Stealth Fighter and B-2 Stealth Bomber.

WAY more nukes, including those on Trident Submarines, which as of yet have been unable to be detected by listening devices.

http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/media/fact/individual/FW.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Force_Warrior


All that said, the US would never be able to successfully invade/occupy the UK.

In many ways British and American troops are remarkably similar. Challenger 2s are tougher and slower, SA-80s are more reliable, but organisation and equipment is fundamentally the same. The Americans just have more of it. And more air support. And naval superiority.

If the US actually attempted to occupy us, though, they'd create the bastard child of Napoleon's Spain, Hitler's Russia, and Bush's Iraq. That is, it would be an ulcer permenantly sapping your strength, it would refuse to give in in the face of... well, anything, and it would be a political quagmire.

Now, people have been going on about historical issues. Let me give my WW2 opinion:

1) The Russians won. All debate is for who came second. It was the Russians who took the punishment in 1942-3. They gave it back with interest in 44-5. They could have won alone. All the other allies could not have won without them.

2) The American troops were more numerous and their senior officers, on average, better. Their industry fueled most of the western war machine. They come second.

3) Britain is only third, however, the US couldn't have done it without us. We were the breach in the walls of Fortress Europe from which all air and most land operations were based and launched. The British refusal to surrender in the face of a seemingly beneficial German deal, a seemingly invincible German army and bombing campaign, and no help forthcoming from the Big Us (USA and USSR) was also crucial. It was the abortion of Sealion that turned the American public away from the belief that Britain was doomed and it was all Europe's problem anyway and conditioned it for the shock of Pearl Harbour and the transition from isolationism to militarism almost overnight.

Can I ask where you plan to fly F22's from? They can't launch from carriers and they can't do transat runs. While they CAN do strike ops trying to fliy pure air superiority missions over such a distance is garunteed to fail. Germany probably don't want us to start lobbing Storm Shadows at them to eliminate the US airbases there either...

B-1's yeah they're scary but if we Do see them (and remember, we'll nick all your Sentries in the Midlands) they're screwed.

The distance alone will make it a stalemate. For either side to get their navies near the enemy coastline would leave them pretty well on their own without resupply and no line of retreat, both sides have aircraft that Could fly strike missions accross the atlantic but neither side has enough I don't think.

The US can cripple countries with outdated and demoralised ex-soviet militaries sure but it would have a lot more trouble against a modern, well-motivated and well equipped nation.

Also, if the UK went to a war footing we could produce some scary stuff. The JSF programme uses a lot of British technology for example.

Can I ask where you plan to fly F22's from? They can't launch from carriers and they can't do transat runs. While they CAN do strike ops trying to fliy pure air superiority missions over such a distance is garunteed to fail. Germany probably don't want us to start lobbing Storm Shadows at them to eliminate the US airbases there either...

B-1's yeah they're scary but if we Do see them (and remember, we'll nick all your Sentries in the Midlands) they're screwed.

The distance alone will make it a stalemate. For either side to get their navies near the enemy coastline would leave them pretty well on their own without resupply and no line of retreat, both sides have aircraft that Could fly strike missions accross the atlantic but neither side has enough I don't think.

The US can cripple countries with outdated and demoralised ex-soviet militaries sure but it would have a lot more trouble against a modern, well-motivated and well equipped nation.

Also, if the UK went to a war footing we could produce some scary stuff. The JSF programme uses a lot of British technology for example.


I'm having a hard time here. Does the US have that much trouble projecting forces beyond its coast line? Did the UK get really,really far away?

The US Navy would have trouble putting an effective Carrier Group near the UK?

What do we use our navy for-the Great Lakes?

It would be suicide flying aircraft over from the USA, you wouldn't have much fuel let for a mission. Easy prey for fighters and anti-air systems.

I'm preaty sure the Europeans wouldn't sit idely by as an island was invaded next to their continent.

It would be suicide flying aircraft over from the USA, you wouldn't have much fuel let for a mission. Easy prey for fighters and anti-air systems.

I'm preaty sure the Europeans wouldn't sit idely by as an island was invaded next to their continent.

Oooh! Ooooh! Let me do it ...

The French would have surrendered to the US as soon as war was declared. The Germans, well, we took care of them in 1918 and they've hardly bothered us since then, so I don't see them being a problem. The Italians? Please, they'd be in line behind the French. The Spanish? Feh. The Poles? We could promise half their country to the Germans. :D

That'll do, I think.

Why does this subject have such a fascination?

It would be suicide flying aircraft over from the USA, you wouldn't have much fuel let for a mission. Easy prey for fighters and anti-air systems.

I'm preaty sure the Europeans wouldn't sit idely by as an island was invaded next to their continent.

The US seems to be able to refuel in flight. Stealth bombers fly missions out of the Southern US and hit Afghanistan. The UK is a little closer.

Europe would probably talk about the war, then call for talks to talk about it some more.

The French would have surrendered to the US as soon as war was declared. The Germans, well, we took care of them in 1918 and they've hardly bothered us since then, so I don't see them being a problem. The Italians? Please, they'd be in line behind the French. The Spanish? Feh. The Poles? We could promise half their country to the Germans. :D



No-Poland would likely remain a steadfast ally of the US, as they always do.

The US seems to be able to refuel in flight. Stealth bombers fly missions out of the Southern US and hit Afghanistan. The UK is a little closer.

Europe would probably talk about the war, then call for talks to talk about it some more.

Yes but when you were refueling on missions to Iraq the refueling planes were coming from the UK and Germany. Also, refueling dosn't work too well when your getting radar tracked or shot at.

It depends. I doubt the UK could invade and conquer the US; though anything is possible.

On the other hand, the US could never conquer the UK because the UK never loses wars like that*. If it tried the US would end up with a huge coalition of angry countries giving it a jolly good smacking.

*past perfomance is no guarantee of future returns.

It depends. I doubt the UK could invade and conquer the US; though anything is possible.

On the other hand, the US could never conquer the UK because the UK never loses wars like that*. If it tried the US would end up with a huge coalition of angry countries giving it a jolly good smacking.

*past perfomance is no guarantee of future returns.

1066. We spoke French for 400 years.

Yes but when you were refueling on missions to Iraq the refueling planes were coming from the UK and Germany. Also, refueling dosn't work too well when your getting radar tracked or shot at.

Ah, yes. Active radar systems. Such wonderful targets.

1066. We spoke French for 400 years.

Wasn't the UK then. Silly billy.

We've still got our coastal pillboxes from World War Two, and we can uparm them with anti-sea missiles.

Although I reckon we'd lose, after much, much resistance. We'd fight to the last. Especially the Scots.

But what if the US offered to let the Scots have independence after US forces took England if they either stayed out of it or joined on the US side?

But what if the US offered to let the Scots have independence after US forces took England if they either stayed out of it or joined on the US side?

The Scotish hate Americans with passion, I would say it would be like fighting Falujah but across an entire country. They would get slaughtered if they came here.

I'm having a hard time here. Does the US have that much trouble projecting forces beyond its coast line? Did the UK get really,really far away?

The US Navy would have trouble putting an effective Carrier Group near the UK?

What do we use our navy for-the Great Lakes?

The US Navy would have trouble KEEPING a carrier group by the UK. Chuck enough missiles at it and it's going down and Hornets effective attack range means you NEED to be within comfortable strike range of us. And Eurofighter Typhoon> F-18. And if you didn't notice there's a frigging OCEAN between us, and this time without friendly countries along the way to help you out.

You can project force but without a convenient resupply point or land base near the target country you can do nothing more than launch airstrikes. If Germany threw in with you we'd be screwed because they Do provide a base near the UK. Otherwise you might cripple us but invasion would remain a very difficult proposition.

The US Navy would have trouble KEEPING a carrier group by the UK. Chuck enough missiles at it and it's going down and Hornets effective attack range means you NEED to be within comfortable strike range of us. And Eurofighter Typhoon> F-18. And if you didn't notice there's a frigging OCEAN between us, and this time without friendly countries along the way to help you out.

You can project force but without a convenient resupply point or land base near the target country you can do nothing more than launch airstrikes. If Germany threw in with you we'd be screwed because they Do provide a base near the UK. Otherwise you might cripple us but invasion would remain a very difficult proposition.

Who's producing the munitions to keep you resupplied?

The Scotish hate Americans with passion, I would say it would be like fighting Falujah but across an entire country. They would get slaughtered if they came here.

It would be easier just to list the people whom the scots don't hate with a passion.

Who's producing the munitions to keep you resupplied?

the french

Who's producing the munitions to keep you resupplied?

The rest of Europe. We're an integral part of just about every joint defence initiative in the EU. Plus we have/can build our own factories. We've certainly got the expertise (my ex's dad once threatened me with the cruise missiles he was working on at the time :p ).

It would not be a long war whatever happened, I suspect we have the munitions stockpiled to take out any assault the US could muster unless a major european power declared for them (in other words, Germany, they're the only ones who might even consider it).

It would be easier just to list the people whom the scots don't hate with a passion.
Sometimes the Welsh.

Sometimes the Welsh.

No. Everyone hates the Welsh.

The US keeps a load of its ammo at some place in Italy, I'm sure the Italians would keep that safe from giving it to the Americans.

The UK would win think of it how many countries hate the U.S? if anyone attacked U.S ( besides IRAQ ) everyone that hates them will help and kill'em all.

The French would have surrendered to the US as soon as war was declared.
Doing you another favour in a war against the Brits :p
The Germans, well, we took care of them in 1918
*coughs* This was the French and British, actually.
The Poles? We could promise half their country to the Germans.
No vodka for your soldiers, then!
Why does this subject have such a fascination?
Because we don't really like the US.

No. Everyone hates the Welsh.
Aye - esp. the USSR, what with giving their sheep radiation poisoning and probably making 60 or so % of Welsh farmers infertile :p

/Anti Welsh mode

I've noticed that everytime this subject comes up, everyone starts adding conditions. On both sides.

Make it simple. The US vs the UK. No outside suppliers of goods or bases. Neither side gets to call on their allies, neither side is allowed to import supplies to bolster their efforts. They have to do it all without any outside support.

I've noticed that everytime this subject comes up, everyone starts adding conditions. On both sides.

Make it simple. The US vs the UK. No outside suppliers of goods or bases. Neither side gets to call on their allies, neither side is allowed to import supplies to bolster their efforts. They have to do it all without any outside support.

In that case niether one could win. Like I said earlier without the air force to back up their navy the US can't do any lasting damage to the UK with out using nukes. However the uk even with bases near the US would never stand a chance invading them. So it would be a stalemate.

What about subs? Who has the best subs? Would subs be used?

I'm hungry and want a submarine sandwich.

is ireland the only country thats gets along with walse?
i always suport them when the play any sport.

What about subs? Who has the best subs? Would subs be used?

I'm hungry and want a submarine sandwich.


I think the UK have the best subs don't they? I know we have the best Navy, 2nd only the the US, but thats only cos theirs is bigger

The US seems to be able to refuel in flight. Stealth bombers fly missions out of the Southern US and hit Afghanistan. The UK is a little closer.

Europe would probably talk about the war, then call for talks to talk about it some more.

ireland would probably let the us use shannon airport. we would just say, "we are being *nutral". we've doing that for awhile. even some of protesters that complain that the us shouldnt use our airports wouldnt mind.

*spelling?

I think the UK have the best subs don't they? I know we have the best Navy, 2nd only the the US, but thats only cos theirs is bigger

I don't know if they do or not, read through this thread and didn't see much mentioned about subs.. only Navy .. although I might have over looked it. Was just curious.

In that case niether one could win. Like I said earlier without the air force to back up their navy the US can't do any lasting damage to the UK with out using nukes. However the uk even with bases near the US would never stand a chance invading them. So it would be a stalemate.

The U. S. Navy has aircraft carriers and therefore does not need the Air Force. These carriers tend to be well protected. They also have troop ships which also tend to be well protected. The U. S. could, therefore, conduct an amphibious assault on the UK and provide sufficient air support in preparation for, during, and after the assault. Also don't forget all those long range bombers based in the U. S. that have the capability to reach targets all across the globe.

The U. S. Navy has aircraft carriers and therefore does not need the Air Force. These carriers tend to be well protected. They also have troop ships which also tend to be well protected. The U. S. could, therefore, conduct an amphibious assault on the UK and provide sufficient air support in preparation for, during, and after the assault. Also don't forget all those long range bombers based in the U. S. that have the capability to reach targets all across the globe.

The carriers have neither the best aircraft, nor enough. I believe the biggest ones have about 70 aircraft, including anti-sub, AWACS and all the other support craft. Their primary fighter/strike aircraft is the F-18E Super Hornet which is just plain outclassed by the Eurofighter and can be matched by the Tornado, both of which Britain can deploy in good numbers. Plus we would have appropriated the NATO E-3 Sentries that fly from the Midlands giving us even more dominance than we would have in a defensive war.

Add in landbased SAM and antiship weapons plus the Royal Navy's submarine forces (the carriers are outclassed by the US, no question, we need to build some big ones that don't use the Harrier) and you're looking at a losing proposition before you even get one Marine's boot on the shore.

though are you talking limited war or total war? in other words total war would be like every able body drafted all industry goes to war materials and limited war is like well normal war with the normal armies

ignoring the fact the U.S. military would out number the british by like 9 to 1 or 10 to 1 the U.S. has several supercarriers which hold about 80 aircraft give or take a few and the fact they would have the f-22 which outclasses the eurofighter (do i need to get to the arguement of why) not to mention they have the worlds biggest airforce and the best trained the would have support units with the carrier like attack subs destroyers and other small defense unites along with the have the worlds biggest navy they simply get air superiority they would send in B-52s and B-2s (yes i know there would be some losses im not trying to act like this a walk in the park) bomb any valueable military targets then they would send in the invasion force with paratroppers and special forces leading the way the U.K. would't stand a chance

and yes i am ingnoring nuclear weapons because if that happened the U.K. would be inhospitable

Where are you flying the F-22 from?

Do enlighten me as to how you get them from Texas to the UK without suffering major pilot fatigue and having too little fuel for any real combat. Yes it's a very capable aircraft but it cannot operate without nearby land bases which you would not have.

You can have the biggest airforce in the world, it's still accross the ocean from us. What we need to deal with are your carriers, a far more manageable prospect.

B-52's unescorted are meat for the Tornado F series. Escorting them would need massive support forces, all vulnerable to systems like the Meteor missile.

Where are you flying the F-22 from?

Do enlighten me as to how you get them from Texas to the UK without suffering major pilot fatigue and having too little fuel for any real combat. Yes it's a very capable aircraft but it cannot operate without nearby land bases which you would not have.


again i say, they would use shannaon airport as a base as have been doing since about 1991.

again i say, they would use shannaon airport as a base as have been doing since about 1991.

so you would base all you aircraft there? Wouldn't one strike take out a lot of your forces there? And thats if the Irish let you use it as a base of operations, which I dout.

so you would base all you aircraft there? Wouldn't one strike take out a lot of your forces there? And thats if the Irish let you use it as a base of operations, which I dout.

ireland currently does let america fly in thier military planes through shannon. though it is posible they will be putting a stop to it soon. current government wont, but new might come in soon. hopefully fine gael and labour coalition. fine gael havent decided thier position on it yet. but labour are against americans using it. since fg are most popular with 18-24year olds, and most 18-24 years olds want it stoped, they probably should. personally i think ireland shouldnt let non-european military planes in thier airports.

ireland currently does let america fly in thier military planes through shannon. though it is posible they will be putting a stop to it soon. current government wont, but new might come in soon. hopefully fine gael and labour coalition. fine gael havent decided thier position on it yet. but labour are against americans using it. since fg are most popular with 18-24year olds, and most 18-24 years olds want it stoped, they probably should. personally i think ireland shouldnt let non-european military planes in thier airports.

Weather or not they are alowed to use them now is not the point. The point is would they allow you to use them in a war with their closest nieghbour, whith whom they have fairly good relations with. In which case the answer would most likely be no.

Hell we allow you to fly your planes out of Briton, but if you started a war with France I really dout you would be allowed to use them for combat missions. There would just be too much risk of collateral damage for when they would stike back which they/we would.

they might an agreement saying to americans that if they win they hand over the north,
or, to the uk, if they help them, they hand over the north.
fine gael have changed thier policy back to united ireland party.

The carriers have neither the best aircraft, nor enough. I believe the biggest ones have about 70 aircraft, including anti-sub, AWACS and all the other support craft. Their primary fighter/strike aircraft is the F-18E Super Hornet which is just plain outclassed by the Eurofighter and can be matched by the Tornado, both of which Britain can deploy in good numbers. Plus we would have appropriated the NATO E-3 Sentries that fly from the Midlands giving us even more dominance than we would have in a defensive war.

Add in landbased SAM and antiship weapons plus the Royal Navy's submarine forces (the carriers are outclassed by the US, no question, we need to build some big ones that don't use the Harrier) and you're looking at a losing proposition before you even get one Marine's boot on the shore.

You need to do some more research on U. S. carriers. Newer ones can carry more than 70. You're looking at around 90 or more even. As for AWACs, and E-3 Sentry with a tanker can cross the Atlantic and hang around for quite a long time. Your nearby CVBG (or CVBGs) can provide fighter escort with Tomcats which can still kick some ass, or Hornets (F-18E, which can also kick ass) or USAF units from Iceland. Also that carrier will have some EA-6B's on board which can take care of the SAMs AND provide jamming for inbound strikers which will likely be A-6E's and/or Hornets which WILL make short work of the Royal Navy. The RAF could put up a fight, but would have to worry about USAF fighters and bombers from Iceland, bombers from the U. S. mainland, as well as from the carrier and that is assuming just ONE CVBG has been assigned to the task. This CVBG will have ships equipped with SM2ER SAMs as well as some that can fire Tomohawks. I haven't even mentioned the Improved Los Angeles class subs (or Centurions depending on how far in the future this theoretical scenario is taking place) with THEIR Tomohawks and ADCAP torpedos.

As long as we're talking about superfighters that haven't gone into service yet, I believe the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter outperforms the Eurofighter 2000 and is slated to take over the Hornet's role in the U. S. Navy with the Hornet taking over the Tomcat's role as fleet interceptor. The F-35 has been built from the ground up to be stealthy and uses much of the same technology that went into the F-22. I don't mean to put down the EF2000 because it and the fighter it is to replace are impressive fighters themselves (I always loved the Tornado).

Those with any of the Harpoon games (or Fleet Command) could try setting up this scenario and see how it plays out.

Absurd.

Absurd.

Which part?

The UK would win, they have the strength of the Commonwealth.

God Save the Queen. Screw ANZUS, Screw the alliance.

This is how I see the war turning out:

United Kindom vs. United States
Antigua and Barbuda
Australia
The Bahamas
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belize
Botswana
Brunei
Cameroon
Canada
Cyprus
Dominica
Fiji
The Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
Guyana
India
Jamaica
Kenya
Kiribati
Lesotho
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Malta
Mauritius
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
New Zealand
Nigeria
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
Uganda
Vanuatu
Zambia

Okay, that’s 53 vs. 1

The US might have aircraft carriers, but they don’t have 1.1 billion Indians, a cricket team, or John Howard. They don’t stand a chance.

The UK would win, they have the strength of the Commonwealth.

God Save the Queen. Screw ANZUS, Screw the alliance.

This is how I see the war turning out:
*snip*

I actually took that as a serious post for a few seconds! :D

Who would win?

Nobody. The American public would go berserk at the thought of war with the UK. Too many people are Anglophiles when you get down to it.

Not going to happen.

Why is this thread going for 14 pages?
:confused:

It depends on who attacked first because the rest of Europe would side withe the deffender. If it was just US vs UK then the US would win after 20 yedars or so just because they have more citizens.

Why is this thread going for 14 pages?
:confused:

I second this.

Which part?

The entire thread.

America has a great tradition of killing British and Commonwealth soldiers and destroying our tanks....... while we are still Allies.




Britain To “Dress Down” U.S. Envoy Over Killing Of British Troops By American Troops

A diplomatic row erupted between London and Washington ght over George Bush’s bid to cover up the way bungling US soldiers killed British servicemen in Iraq.

The President’s envoy in the UK has been summoned to a humiliating dressing down in Whitehall tomorrow because of a White House refusal to make American troops answer in British courts for their mistakes on the battlefield.
http://www.rojo.com/story/dUQ9FDHZZag_PzWr


Whether they could kill any British soldiers on purpose i'm not so sure. If we went to war with the USA we might actually lose fewer soldiers than by staying at peace with them


W

(runs up the flag RULE BRITANNIA)

America has a great tradition of killing British and Commonwealth soldiers and destroying our tanks....... while we are still Allies.




http://www.rojo.com/story/dUQ9FDHZZag_PzWr


Whether they could kill any British soldiers on purpose i'm not so sure. If we went to war with the USA we might actually lose fewer soldiers than by staying at peace with them


W

(runs up the flag RULE BRITANNIA)

Its not only soliders they kill..If I remember rightly Terry Lloyd, the ITV reporter in Iraq, was killed by American "friendly" fire in 2003.

Its not only soliders they kill..If I remember rightly Terry Lloyd, the ITV reporter in Iraq, was killed by American "friendly" fire in 2003.

And Canadian soilders were bombed in Afganistan. And they don't just do it to there allies they do it to other american troops too (I saw it on a documentary on the history channel can't remember when).

And Canadian soilders were bombed in Afganistan. And they don't just do it to there allies they do it to other american troops too (I saw it on a documentary on the history channel can't remember when).

So much so that during WWII the US Army Air Force (as I believe it was at that time) was known commonly as 'the American Luftwaffe' due to its tendency to rack up allied casualties.

So if they keep it up, then the UK doesn't have to worry about being out numbered the US will deal with that and witle their own numbers down.

We might have a chance after all!:p

You need to do some more research on U. S. carriers. Newer ones can carry more than 70. You're looking at around 90 or more even. As for AWACs, and E-3 Sentry with a tanker can cross the Atlantic and hang around for quite a long time. Your nearby CVBG (or CVBGs) can provide fighter escort with Tomcats which can still kick some ass, or Hornets (F-18E, which can also kick ass) or USAF units from Iceland. Also that carrier will have some EA-6B's on board which can take care of the SAMs AND provide jamming for inbound strikers which will likely be A-6E's and/or Hornets which WILL make short work of the Royal Navy. The RAF could put up a fight, but would have to worry about USAF fighters and bombers from Iceland, bombers from the U. S. mainland, as well as from the carrier and that is assuming just ONE CVBG has been assigned to the task. This CVBG will have ships equipped with SM2ER SAMs as well as some that can fire Tomohawks. I haven't even mentioned the Improved Los Angeles class subs (or Centurions depending on how far in the future this theoretical scenario is taking place) with THEIR Tomohawks and ADCAP torpedos.

As long as we're talking about superfighters that haven't gone into service yet, I believe the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter outperforms the Eurofighter 2000 and is slated to take over the Hornet's role in the U. S. Navy with the Hornet taking over the Tomcat's role as fleet interceptor. The F-35 has been built from the ground up to be stealthy and uses much of the same technology that went into the F-22. I don't mean to put down the EF2000 because it and the fighter it is to replace are impressive fighters themselves (I always loved the Tornado).

Those with any of the Harpoon games (or Fleet Command) could try setting up this scenario and see how it plays out.

You don;t HAVE Tomcats anymore (the last ones were retired last month sometime) and the Eurofighter Typhoon is in service right now. JSF/F-35 Lightning II won't even be mass produced for another 3 years at least.

I don't know enough about naval systems but I'm pretty sure we could hold the Channel and the Irish sea unless the French and Irish both cane out on your side which I severely doubt.

Why do we get these stupid ass threads every once in a while ...its like a " dumb ass " virus strikes and cause it , in a cycle type thing .


Someone put up a sticky ...no more who would win if ...threads , re. the US.

The fucking world would end. NO one could win . They would be atomic particles. Vapor circling the atmosphere. Every country in the world KNOWS this is a fact . So there will be no war .

Its just a huge circle jerk .

Why do we get these stupid ass threads every once in a while ...its like a " dumb ass " virus strikes and cause it , in a cycle type thing .

Its called recycling, its good for the environment you know. :D

So much so that during WWII the US Army Air Force (as I believe it was at that time) was known commonly as 'the American Luftwaffe' due to its tendency to rack up allied casualties.

Have you seen the documentary on the WWII air force? Most American pilolts were stone drunk, and had an average of two weeks training in a wooden box that was supposed to resemble a plane cockpit.

You don;t HAVE Tomcats anymore (the last ones were retired last month sometime) and the Eurofighter Typhoon is in service right now. JSF/F-35 Lightning II won't even be mass produced for another 3 years at least.

I don't know enough about naval systems but I'm pretty sure we could hold the Channel and the Irish sea unless the French and Irish both cane out on your side which I severely doubt.

I stand corrected. However, that does not automatically assure a British victory. I was looking at the scenario as purely U. S. vs. U. K., not U. S. versus everyone else.

I stand corrected. However, that does not automatically assure a British victory. I was looking at the scenario as purely U. S. vs. U. K., not U. S. versus everyone else.

Well I was assuming neutrality and that neutral parties would prevent EITHER side openly using their land.

*shrugs*

It's a pointless argument anyway, neither side could concievably make a gain from it anyway.