United States vs United Kingdom

[InnerBrat]

Don't start a fight with a drunk Scot.

No, seriously, DON'T!!!!!

<hides under table>

[Perinquus]

The COMMONWEALTH vs the USA? You realise the sheer size of the military that the Commonwealth contains?

USA loses.

Actually, the Commonwealth hasn't got much of a chance. You see, the problem is, that while the entire Commonwealth combined may have more men under arms (and I'm not sure, but it might) what you lack is an ability to project that power. If we're talking about conventional war, it does matter if you outnumber us when you can't get the troops to the battleground before it's too late to make a difference. The U.S. Navy can gain air supremacy in virtually any part of the globe, the Commonwealth can't. The U.S. Air Force has to operate from land bases, but can still send bombers all over the world, and once ground bases near the objectives have been secured, the most technologically advanced fighters in the world, flown by some of the best trained pilots can take and hold complete air supremacy. The Commonwealth forces lack air superiority fighters period. I'm amazed this gap in Britain's air defenses has been allowed to exist, but it does - the RAF has nothing that could contest air superiority with an F15, nevermind the F22s we're putting into service. The Tornado, Britain's most advanced aircraft is a ground attack plane, not an air superiority fighter. I'm not sure what the RCAF and the RAAF have in the way of fighters, but it's not bound to be any better than the USAF's planes, and it's sure to be less numerous.

The Commonwealth also lacks the troop carrying capacity of the U.S., and even if it had it, could not adequately defend the transports from the U.S. Navy and Air Force. Commonwealth forces really have no way, short of the nuclear option, to carry the war to the U.S., while the U.S. has more ability to project its power around the globe than any other country on earth.

A fairer fight would have been to have the U.S. fight the British Empire either just before or after WWI, when Britain could very well have won a victory over the U.S.

[InnerBrat]

For the sake of argument lets have the commonwealth countries surrender their military (temporarily) to British command.

Ahhhh, 'coz y'se, Britains bad at following orders, but is the world leader at giving them - assuming we've already deposed Blair for being an American spy.

[Cal Wright]

You guys do realize that America doesn't break for 'tea time', unless it's tossing that nasty shit into the water.

[weemadando]

Actually, the Commonwealth hasn't got much of a chance. You see, the problem is, that while the entire Commonwealth combined may have more men under arms (and I'm not sure, but it might) what you lack is an ability to project that power. If we're talking about conventional war, it does matter if you outnumber us when you can't get the troops to the battleground before it's too late to make a difference. The U.S. Navy can gain air supremacy in virtually any part of the globe, the Commonwealth can't. The U.S. Air Force has to operate from land bases, but can still send bombers all over the world, and once ground bases near the objectives have been secured, the most technologically advanced fighters in the world, flown by some of the best trained pilots can take and hold complete air supremacy. The Commonwealth forces lack air superiority fighters period. I'm amazed this gap in Britain's air defenses has been allowed to exist, but it does - the RAF has nothing that could contest air superiority with an F15, nevermind the F22s we're putting into service. The Tornado, Britain's most advanced aircraft is a ground attack plane, not an air superiority fighter. I'm not sure what the RCAF and the RAAF have in the way of fighters, but it's not bound to be any better than the USAF's planes, and it's sure to be less numerous.

The Commonwealth also lacks the troop carrying capacity of the U.S., and even if it had it, could not adequately defend the transports from the U.S. Navy and Air Force. Commonwealth forces really have no way, short of the nuclear option, to carry the war to the U.S., while the U.S. has more ability to project its power around the globe than any other country on earth.

You're forgetting... We just have to fight off the US. Not invade them. And we have ample troop transport capability. Tasmania supplies the US Navy with high speed troop transports. We can crank them out and convert our civvie ones. They hold the record for cross-atlantic times.

[Perinquus]

You're forgetting... We just have to fight off the US. Not invade them. And we have ample troop transport capability. Tasmania supplies the US Navy with high speed troop transports. We can crank them out and convert our civvie ones. They hold the record for cross-atlantic times.

Nobody ever won a war by staying completely on the defensive. All that would mean is that you would delay the U.S. occupation. Since we have the greater industrial capacity, we could simply overwhelm you even if you somehow managed to fight off the first wave. To win you'd have to end our ability to do that, and I repeat, short of going nuclear, you have no way.

And again, having the transports is not enough, you've got to be able to defend them. The U.S. Navy is far larger than the navies of all the commonwealth countries combined. We'd sink them faster than you could build them.

[weemadando]

The US would quickly buckle under the weight of public opinion over high casualties.

And again, where are you going to make landfall in:

1) Britain
2) Australia
3) India
4) Pakistan
etc etc etc...

Too many nations for you to conquer.

[Perinquus]

The US would quickly buckle under the weight of public opinion over high casualties.

And again, where are you going to make landfall in:

1) Britain
2) Australia
3) India
4) Pakistan
etc etc etc...

Too many nations for you to conquer.

Oh we could conquer them easily enough. Maintaining control is where the real difficulty would lay, since it would involve a major long term commitment of troops that I doubt public opinion here would support. But that would depend entirely on how the war started. Don't automatically assume that high casualties would cause public support to evaporate. Again, it depends entirely on how hostilities commence. If we went to war in a way that made us look to be the aggressors, then there would certainly be a strong anti-war movement, and lack of public support for the war. But if the Commonwealth forces attacked first in a Pearl Harbor-like first strike, we would unite solidly behind the war effort and be willing to face very heavy casualties.

[Drewcifer]

This thread has had me thinking of an old Father Guido Sarducci routine:

Let'sa bomba Canada

and a tech question: can B-2's drop daisy cutters? Or are they too big/not designed for high altitude drops?

[Bastard]

Anyways, Canadian superpower aside, the UK can't hurt 'Merika. But they can make it bloody.

Bull and BULL!

The UK can certainly hurt 'Merika.

In fact, if the war was going badly and we had our backs to the wall, well then we might just supply each of 'Merika's great cities with their own personal sunrise.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I pointed out to Sheppard

What happens to the Southwestern States when the mostly decommissioned US military leaves for war, and The Columbian & Mexican Drug Cartels decied that they would like TX oil and CA computers?

[Crazy_Vasey]

America would win the war rather easily unless we managed to recall our troops back from the shitty little tinpot conflicts they're 'peacekeeping' in rather quicky and dug in long enough for public opinion in teh USA to turn against the war.

Oh yeah and hopefully someone would 'accidentally' shoot lapdog Blair.

[Admiral Piett]

and a tech question: can B-2's drop daisy cutters? Or are they too big/not designed for high altitude drops?

Nope,daisy cutters can be dropped only from C 130s.

Here is the payload of the B2

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm

[weemadando]

Anyways, Canadian superpower aside, the UK can't hurt 'Merika. But they can make it bloody.

Bull and BULL!

The UK can certainly hurt 'Merika.

In fact, if the war was going badly and we had our backs to the wall, well then we might just supply each of 'Merika's great cities with their own personal sunrise.

IIRC Britain is one of the nations that holds a nuclear scorched earth policy. You really don't want to invade them.

[weemadando]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-2.htm

From that site:

Air Vehicle - AV- 2
Aircraft # - 82-1067
Name - Spirit of ARIZONA, Ship From Hell, [Murphy's Law]
.
.
.

I don't trust any plane that the crew saw fit to name "Murphy's Law".