NationStates Jolt Archive

this is just a copy of http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=507728
but I decided to put a poll in for more accuracy

The US. They'd just carpet bomb us. We'd fight to the last, but we'd lose, to be honest.

First off, going to war with the UK would suck. I would hate to see it. Unless it was after one state became a V for Vendetta-style totalitarian regime and was liberated after the war.

Second off, the U.S. would win. The British have too small an area to work with, and destroying and even cutting off the homeland would be far simpler with Britain than with America. If you destroy London, Edinburgh, and a few other major cities in the UK, it's lights out. If you destroy Washington, NYC, and LA along with a few other cities, it hurts bad, but the U.S. keeps ticking.

That having been said, I hope it's a situation that never arises.

Britain, far superior technology and comms. Too much experience in warfare. Numbers are not necessarily a winner when guerilla warfare is much better. :mp5:

The US. They'd just carpet bomb us. We'd fight to the last, but we'd lose, to be honest.

I don't know...you Brits could always call upon your Canadian buddies to come at us with Bear Cavalry...

The US. They'd just carpet bomb us. We'd fight to the last, but we'd lose, to be honest.

Nah, tried that in Vietnam, didn't work.

I don't know...you Brits could always call upon your Canadian buddies to come at us with Bear Cavalry...

I wasn't factoring in allies; I would assume Canada would want to stay the hell out of it. I would also assume the U.S. would leave Canada alone and so would Britain. Besides, if Canada joins on Britain's side, the Americans get Israel. Plus, we'll just draft all the illegal immigrants. I'll assume about a million of them can serve, and if they dont' serve, we...umm, trick them into thinking they're serving Mexico. Yeah, that's it.

Also, I know the British have nukes, but I think American nukes can do a lot more damage than Britain's. Less land to cover, you know.

I wasn't factoring in allies; I would assume Canada would want to stay the hell out of it. I would also assume the U.S. would leave Canada alone and so would Britain. Besides, if Canada joins on Britain's side, the Americans get Israel. Plus, we'll just draft all the illegal immigrants. I'll assume about a million of them can serve, and if they dont' serve, we...umm, trick them into thinking they're serving Mexico. Yeah, that's it.

Also, I know the British have nukes, but I think American nukes can do a lot more damage than Britain's. Less land to cover, you know.

Britains Trident would be a tough match even before upgrading let alone all the commonwealth states if you wanted to bring in others. Even with Britain sunk into the North Sea it still has a functioning war machine.

They would win the initial war, but they would loose the resistance. Britain has always been like this, you would have the specialist regiments like Paras, Royal Marines mingle back into civillian lifestyles. Special forces would cause havoc with acts of sabotage.

You would have chav insurgency, chavs nicking things of Americans and then trying to sell them back to them at the bases! :p

They would win the initial war, but they would loose the resistance. Britain has always been like this, you would have the specialist regiments like Paras, Royal Marines mingle back into civillian lifestyles. Special forces would cause havoc with acts of sabotage.

You would have chav insurgency, chavs nicking things of Americans and then trying to sell them back to them at the bases! :p

PMSL this is so true.

You would also get the pikey's yard clearing and dumping it outside the bases.

Nah, tried that in Vietnam, didn't work.

It wasn't done right in Vietnam. But really, why does this topic keep coming up? This is at least the 3rd thread on it, indeed, this is actually the 2nd one today. The US and britain are not going to come to blows, so ... who cares?

The U.S would win, striaght out. The UK doesn't have rain forests and monsoons to hide behind like Vietnam. British folk don't have guns so they can't fight back, unlike Americans. I still don't think either can occupy each other. But in a seperate battlefield or in the seas the US would crush British oppostion. Britian has ~400 Challenger 2 tanks, the US has over 8,444 M1A2 Abrams tanks. And in my opinion I think that if this kind of war ever happens both the US and UK would be left with seriously injured economies and militaries, and then the Russians would probably exploit us. Not so much the Chinese because they hardly have a navy and China still wouldn't think of attacking Russia. But that's off the topic.

Britain, far superior technology and comms. Too much experience in warfare. Numbers are not necessarily a winner when guerilla warfare is much better. :mp5:

I dont think we were talking occupation. Just an outright war. Guerilla is only useful in an occupation. When the goal is to level the cities, the US would win hands down.

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 :sniper: and everyone dies.

I dont think we were talking occupation. Just an outright war. Guerilla is only useful in an occupation. When the goal is to level the cities, the US would win hands down.

And even if a resistence occured the best it could hope for would be a draw, since it wouldn't be able to come over and take the states.

Not so much the Chinese because they hardly have a navy and China still wouldn't think of attacking Russia. But that's off the topic.

I'm afraid you need to read the joint chief of staff's report to senate on that one. You might not enjoy it, though.

Also:

"Military Projection" is a tenuous phrase (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20750156-1702,00.html)