StarDestroyer.Net BBS

For some inscructable reason, the United States and the United Kingdom, as they are today, go to war, both declaring war at the same time. Initially, the majority of both countries' populations support the war for whatever reason.

The EU, NATO, the UN, whoever, will not be able to interfere. The American objective is to take control of the UK(N. Ireland, England, Wales, and Scotland), and all of it's possessions(Falklands, Gibraltor, etc). The UK objective is to hold them off.

What is the result?

Oh this is fair!

Hey, why not pit Andorra against the Culture or better yet, my family's dog against Rancor?

Well, as long as anything alcholic is kept away from the Scots, it's total victory. If the Scots get thier rum, then every redneck from my doorstep and throught the south east had better get the moonshine distillers running.

Either 1 or 3 (assuming conventional warfare only, nukes mean everybody loses). While Britain is still a major world power, militarily she's nothing to write home to mother about. The lack of an real ability to project power is a negative. The only carriers are those jump carriers, which can only carry helos and Harriers. American naval aviation would mop the deck against those. It would then come down to a steady whittling away of Britain's aerial defenses, then striking ground defenses. It would make sense to take Northern Ireland first, to establish a ground base for AF aircraft and army troops to be closer to England for the full invasion.

Behold the spam thread

DG_Cal_Wright wrote:Well, as long as anything alcholic is kept away from the Scots, it's total victory. If the Scots get thier rum, then every redneck from my doorstep and throught the south east had better get the moonshine distillers running.

As a half Scot, there ain't enough Southern Comfort in the whole world that can stop the Scots a coming.

Incidentally, the last time I saw this thread run(on a UK board), someone claimed the RN was defeat the USN because it was 'smaller, and harder to find, like in battleship'

Look, it wpn't even get to violence. Poodle blair will sign over our entire country on the first negotiation meeting...

We will fight them on the oceans, we will fight them over the land.
We will never sourrender.
Something like that.

Besides, Portugal is England oldest ally, we would enter the war if requested and then the U.S would really be in trouble. Ask Napoleon.

Seriously, the U.S would not be able to enter the British islands without it going Nuclear. The U.K has enough nukes to spread havoc in the States, but not to obliterate them (at least, I think so). The U.S can obliterate the U.K

Cyril, that is utter bullshit unless the RN goes hiding off Iceland.*Smirks as the land formerly known as Britannia becomes the 51st State*

innerbrat wrote:Poodle blair

Ouch.

Cyril wrote:Incidentally, the last time I saw this thread run(on a UK board), someone claimed the RN was defeat the USN because it was 'smaller, and harder to find, like in battleship'

Lol, that be good bullshit.

Frankly the outcome would be bloody, but the US would not hold onto the UK and the UK would never even be able to get to the US to do any damage.

This is merely a wankathon for those that like seeing how big and shiny CVBGs be.

IG-88E wrote:

innerbrat wrote:Poodle blair

Ouch.

No, very well done. Blair is a fucking tit.

Mind you, Bush is an absolute eejit too.

Putin however, now that guy has balls.

Except apparently most Americans think the UK is in the Middle east (Daily Mail, a few weeks ago).

So we'll win, cause our nukes will be aimed in the right driection...

The United Kingdom AND THE COMMONWEALTH you say?

Well then the US is going to be majorly distracted at the Start with Canada getting going right on its doorstep.

The Canadians should be able to buy enough time for the UK to militrise massively and begin mass armament production, production of aircraft, ships etc...

Anyway, even the UK as it stands would be bad for the US. Britain has a modern navy, which includes state of the art nuclear hunter-killer subs. The US would not be able to use its favoured tactic of parking a few carriers off the coast of the host nation and bombing away, then bringing up troopships and sending in the marines.

Britain also has a modern air force and air defence. Any air campaign against the UK would result in massive US losses. ANd a ground war would be hopeless without first gaining air supremacy.

Admiral Valdemar wrote: No, very well done. Blair is a fucking tit.

Mind you, Bush is an absolute eejit too.

Putin however, now that guy has balls.

I know.

No shit.

Damn straight.

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

IG-88E wrote:

innerbrat wrote:Poodle blair

Ouch.

No, very well done. Blair is a fucking tit.

Mind you, Bush is an absolute eejit too.

well, that's why Blair is such a tit.
We wouldn't care if he was obeying the every command of a good president...

innerbrat wrote:

Admiral Valdemar wrote:

IG-88E wrote: Ouch.

No, very well done. Blair is a fucking tit.

Mind you, Bush is an absolute eejit too.

well, that's why Blair is such a tit.
We wouldn't care if he was obeying the every command of a good president...

I would like to see a Palpatine crawl in and dethrone these ponces. Or if anyone has played MGS2, maybe the Patriots are pulling the strings...

Except apparently most Americans think the UK is in the Middle east (Daily Mail, a few weeks ago).

Where I come from, we call that 'bullshit'.

Read the article. There is no poll, the man was making a joke, and if the Daily Mail was run in the States the only place it would be sold is in the Superfresh checkout aisles.

Well then the US is going to be majorly distracted at the Start with Canada getting going right on its doorstep.

Puh-leeze. Canada would be run through by the frickin' National Guard.

The Canadians should be able to buy enough time for the UK to militrise massively and begin mass armament production, production of aircraft, ships etc...

Oh, yes, because every single carrer battle group, regiment, and division will come steaming back home when...OHMIGOD...CANADA! invades.

By the way, where exactly will the UK begin this mass armament production? Perhaps you forget that the United States' GNP and industrial base outnumber the UK by some sort of theoretical number?

Anyway, even the UK as it stands would be bad for the US. Britain has a modern navy, which includes state of the art nuclear hunter-killer subs. The US would not be able to use its favoured tactic of parking a few carriers off the coast of the host nation and bombing away, then bringing up troopships and sending in the marines.

Yes, such a state of the art navy that routinely runs it's ships aground and has had subs captured by civilian protestors. We have destroyers for a reason.

Britain also has a modern air force and air defence. Any air campaign against the UK would result in massive US losses. ANd a ground war would be hopeless without first gaining air supremacy.

The US could just throw planes at the UK if need be.

Well while this whole attacking America through Canada thing is pretty quaint in a sort of fantasy-never-will-happen type way, the calling of RN practice as bad because their boats have run aground before is a pot, kettle, black affair. I shall leave it at that since I dislike delving in such topics.

Bastard wrote:The United Kingdom AND THE COMMONWEALTH you say?

Well then the US is going to be majorly distracted at the Start with Canada getting going right on its doorstep.

The Canadians should be able to buy enough time for the UK to militrise massively and begin mass armament production, production of aircraft, ships etc...

Canada could win. First thing we'd do is shut off power to the Eastern Seaboard. Once New York is rioting the army would have to be recalled to deal with that. No more BC Hydro to power California, no more Alberta water, etc.

The US is dependent on Canadian resources to survive (and vice verse, Canada and the US are interdependent.)

And once that's done, we'd send a special diplomatic envoy to burn down the White House for old times sake.

But seriously, any war between Canada and the US would be devastating to both countries. Enough so that a power like the UK could easily mop up.

C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

Bastard wrote:The United Kingdom AND THE COMMONWEALTH you say?

Well then the US is going to be majorly distracted at the Start with Canada getting going right on its doorstep.

The Canadians should be able to buy enough time for the UK to militrise massively and begin mass armament production, production of aircraft, ships etc...

Canada could win. First thing we'd do is shut off power to the Eastern Seaboard. Once New York is rioting the army would have to be recalled to deal with that. No more BC Hydro to power California, no more Alberta water, etc.

The US is dependent on Canadian resources to survive (and vice verse, Canada and the US are interdependent.)

And once that's done, we'd send a special diplomatic envoy to burn down the White House for old times sake.

But seriously, any war between Canada and the US would be devastating to both countries. Enough so that a power like the UK could easily mop up.

Well I knew there was a reason I liked you Strowbridge!

Well, when I created the topic, I didn't actually intend for Canada to be involved.

Cyril wrote:Well, when I created the topic, I didn't actually intend for Canada to be involved.

Oh, cause that's what I thought when I read:

"The Commonwealth crushes the States"

"The Canadians should be able to buy enough time for the UK to militrise massively and begin mass armament production, production of aircraft, ships etc..."

Unless you can militarize in a couple of days I doubt that Canada would be useful.Probably there are states in the US which have national guards more powerful than the whole canadian army.And if the UK can massproduce the US can.And the can produce more,like the japanese learnt in the hard way in WW2.In anycase the war would be over before mass production could even start.In reality probably it would be difficult to massproduce today like it was done in WW2.I do not think that for example nuclear subs can be assembled as quicklu as WW2 era diesel boats.

"Anyway, even the UK as it stands would be bad for the US. Britain has a modern navy, which includes state of the art nuclear hunter-killer subs."

The hunters will then become the hunted.It would be roughly a dozen of british subs versus roughly fifty american subs and the ASW surface forces.They can only hope to bring some americans with them before dieing.

"The US would not be able to use its favoured tactic of parking a few carriers off the coast of the host nation and bombing away, then bringing up troopships and sending in the marines."

Bother to explain why? Ah,yes the subs.Which are going to die,see above.

"Any air campaign against the UK would result in massive US losses."

If for massive you mean that they would be able to shoot down some planes you may be correct.Then if you think that this would be enough to stop the USAF you are wrong.

Either you are joking or you have smoked pretty weird stuff.The only problem for the US would be in the ground invasion.They would need a base and more amphibious assault assets.They would probably need some time to build them and finding staging point would be the problem,although ireland may be the solution.Remember however that time is on the US side.They can outproduce the UK.