total man power uk+new type 45

Two western nations with nuclear weapons wouldn't even dream of fighting each other.

Nukes ended conventional world wars. Only suicidal religious radicals or anarchists would use a nuclear weapon against another nuclear capable state. Mutually assured destruction is a big turn off in war...

A (hypothetical) war between the US and the UK would be stupidly difficult. For both sides the casualty levels would be beyond acceptable. Plus stock markets on both sides of the Atlantic would crash. What's the point in war if no one makes a profit? Also when either side perceived itself loosing it would play the nuke card.

Our countries are too closely tied economically, socially, politically and militarily for any war to make sense.

Originally posted by Niall197
There is, of course, one country geographically close to the UK with fierce anti-British feeling in some quarters. The Irish Republic. If they were compliant with USA wishes I could see that country being reinforced by the USA "for their own protection" before hostilities commence. With a large Atlantic coast, with harbours capable of accomodating incoming supply ships, good airports & infrastructure, Ireland could be a perfect staging post for an invasion of the British mainland...

...Hopefully (for the Americans at least) hostilities wouldn't commence before the reinforcement of Ireland had been completed. Of course the US would have to invade Northern Ireland to cover it's own rear. And jolly good luck to them in that endeavour - their reception on the Shankill Road in Belfast will make downtown Baghdad look like a cakewalk.

As you point out the "Occupied six counties" (to coin a republican phrase) would create a rather difficult situation if bases were attempted in the South. There are currenly 5000 troops in the North (would be 17000 if peace hadn't broken out). There is the ability to increase this to 25'000+ in very short notice. Combine this with the pre-built and mapped military infrastructure from the Troubles and you have an immediate obsticle on this front. The roadways and transit routes from the north to the south are notoriously difficult to patrol and control, meaning small groups of soldiers could easily infaltrate into the centre of US occupation.

The Protestant people of Ulster are also known to be the most staunchly loyal group to the monarchy in the UK. They are easily capable of creating holy hell on the border, requiring further troop commitments from an already potentially overstretched US invasion force.

Truct me, taking the South of Ireland would be more trouble than it's worth. The irish army would probably roll over in a heart beat, but they would not be the problem.

Its an interesting hypothosis, thats been run in here before.

Since the Boston Tea Party, both sides have stood together, in an almost unseperable way. Yes there have been disputes, or lack of forthcomings from one nation to the next. I still believe the USA need the UK of equal paramount importance as they do vice versa.

Seperate they both have weakness, together its pretty much unrivaled.

It would take many significant things to change that harmony.

I think now is a time it would just become stronger than opposed, what with Russia doing some pretty stupid things recently, thats just seperating the west from them to almost Cold War scenarios.

Still whilst being a Brit, I maintain, the USA could take on the World if it needed to. Not many countries I believe could induce the same.

On that note however, I would say, you would need to be very foolish to try and invade the UK. It may look fairly backwater in comparson to Russia, China and the USA in terms of numbers, but its one hell of a fortress. Theres also no doubt the Gurkas, Irish Regiment, Colonial countries such as Canada, Australia etc would stand by and watch, they would also be in the thick of it.

I suppose thats what makes the bonds so strong between all of the above.

I know for a fact, I wouldn't want to put my best men in front of the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and face England as well.

The USA/UK relationship is here to stay, afterall they are our brothers and sisters from across the pond are they not.

Originally posted by st3ve_o
i wonder who would win in a fight between batman and spiderman?

Captain America would own all.

The US/UK partnership indeed is unrivalled, their are/is no other earthly force capable of competing agaisnt the two, they got each others back.

Attackingly Ireland in an assult to take their lands is both unthinkable and repulsive to myself even just as a talking point, the trouble in the North for so many years goes to show its not worth the hassle, sure Ireland probably aint got much of an Army but after the dust settled what significant economic plus point would their be to the UK?, none, Apart from a great deal of lost respect from our Allies.

In todays modern world I dont think we will ever see established European countries with close proximity to one another openly declare war on one another, sure they might not agree on everything but they would not dare be the first to pull the trigger. The US on the other hand would never invade or attack countries like Mexico & Canada who are basically already an NAU though the possibility of a war with Venezuela was quite feasible and likely througout the year of 2006, seems this year everythings went quiet on that front at least theirs been nothing in the British news.

The British losses in Iraq may be somewhat less due to the time factor it is also possible the amount of troops deployed by the US far outweighs the UK's own which would obviously be a factor.

As far as I know both the US and UK on the water are unparalelled (Am I missing something tell me) Id even say the UK has a "better" sea-warfare approach having the history behind it, whilst the US Air-force would arguably be better to the UKs (Raptors v Eurofighters? Eurpfighters may be at a disadvantage due to being a utility fighter, whilst the Raptor is a stereotypical supreme dogfighter). On the gorund we would severely take a "TANKING" nothing to do with the "skill" of the UK's ground forces but the fact that they are lacking the equipment (Not to long ago we werent able to provide BPvests for all our troops aswell as other clothing boots etc) and to an extent the equipment (the vehicles, land rovers etc) they do have at the moment is somewhat inferior to the US's.

Originally posted by PaddyInf
Their approach seemed slightly heavy handed, but in essence the US is at the shallow end of a VERY steep learning curve in internal security operations. It took the UK forces over 30 years to get these skills down to the art that we did, and the US has had no where near this amount of time. None the less they are doing a fantastic job and their IS knowledge is increasing exponentially.

I sometimes wonder whether the US has failed to exploit the invaluable knowledge that Britain gained from Northern Ireland as well as other insurgencies from the days of the British Empire (Malaysia, for instance - a successful anti-insurgency campaign). We've been doing this sort of thing since... well, the US was sort of born out of a successful insurgency so let's say for quite a long time

Britain obviously wasn't very good at anti-insurgency tactics back in the 1770s. But I think we've learned things since then

The separate styles and approaches to combat have a great deal to do with each nation's military history, and it would benefit the US Military hugely if they consulted some of their British counterparts more often (and indeed vice versa). The US has never really had to fight many wars like this before. For the United States, the 19th Century was dominated by the War of 1812 and the American Civil War. It kept itself to itself in the early 20th century, got involved in World War I for the final year, then took the path of isolationism until World War II. After that, the US was focused on the Cold War and the conflicts with the communist world (which is where anti-insurgency campaigns really began for the Americans - Vietnam springs to mind). Britain, on the other hand, not only had experiences of major wars but also of smaller, localised conflicts/insurgencies and has had to deal with them since the Empire began to take shape. I admit that Britain didn't deal with many of them (perhaps most of them?) brilliantly, but the knowledge is still useful... learning from your mistakes and so forth. British military experiences are an untapped but potentially very lucrative resource for the US, I feel.

Meanwhile, we could take a bit of advice on dealing with the Russians

Originally posted by EuPHORiA
Since the Boston Tea Party, both sides have stood together, in an almost unseperable way.

We really did not form an alliance until very late in the 19th century and our bonds weren't solidified until after WWII. As for the US and anti insurgency, we were successful in the Philippine-American War due largely to the heavy hand tactics we employed. Tactics which today are unacceptable and therefore not used.

In an American invasion of the UK where would the US operate from? In the past they have nearly always had somewhere as support eg. WWII Australia, Gulf War Saudi Arabia.

Originally posted by PaddyInf


Truct me, taking the South of Ireland would be more trouble than it's worth. The irish army would probably roll over in a heart beat, but they would not be the problem.

I have to agree... I think we have already established RAF and Royal Navy are better trained, yet US Forces have number advantages... so i think they would be able to get into mainland.. however like Paddy says.. then the army would not be their problem... I'm pretty sure english and irish are some of the toughest people in the world.. we wouldnt go down without a fight it would be vietnam all over again... I personally think civilians would become the problem.. i personally wouldnt hesitate to kill every single american i come across if they was invading.

Originally posted by altrock

I have to agree... I think we have already established RAF and Royal Navy are better trained, yet US Forces have number advantages

I have yet to see any solid information confirming any substantial higher level of training that the RN and RAF recieve. And even if they are, its not like the USAF and USN are BADLY trained, USAF pilots get hundreds of hours in the air, US navy officers have to go to years of officer training schools to become anything remotely like an officer.

... so i think they would be able to get into mainland.. however like Paddy says.. then the army would not be their problem... I'm pretty sure english and irish are some of the toughest people in the world

You seem pretty sure that the Americans arent. Its not the fat mcdonalds people who join the military here

.. we wouldnt go down without a fight it would be vietnam all over again...

Yeah because UK troops fight like guerillas and there is lots of jungle in London, right? No, the UK is a conventional force, therefore I dont see how it would be vienam at all. It would be more akin to clearing berlin.

I personally think civilians would become the problem.. i personally wouldnt hesitate to kill every single american i come across if they was invading.

Now THAT is ignorant. Yeah, kill lots of civilians. That falls under the category of war-time atrocities and if you would like to be known as that type of person, your house would probably be in the USAF's bullseye more prominently than many of the UK's military facilities.

Originally posted by danwild6
Captain America would own all.

I dunno, captain Britain would certainly give him a run for his money

Britain hasn’t been successfully invaded by force for nearly a thousand years now, and I don’t see anybody being able to do so for a long time.

We would put up a decent fight against a U.S. assault but would eventually capitulate due to the sheer numbers.

The U.S. would be able to conquer Britain, but occupying is a different matter.

This leads on to the Iraq questions mooted on here. The U.S. is the best conquering nation in the world, but relatively inexperienced at being an occupier. This is the where us Brits excel, we have been doing this for a long time.

The difference in mentality was apparent at the begininning of the current Iraq occupation. Whilst the U.S. troops were being accused of being slightly heavy handed the British were giving out sweets and colouring books!

But please remember we are such close allies that we are basically the same nation! Just my two cents.

@ black widow.

i'm not going to reply to all your post, but i don't think the person you replyed to said americans are 'fat mcdonnalds people' end of the day if (BIG IF) america invaded great britain how many US troops would be here controling the population, 200,000?

i think the point he was getting at is, even if the US defeated our armed forces (which would be very difficult) britain's population is 60+ million, how do you control that?

[edit on 22-10-2007 by st3ve_o]

I hope Britain and the US can get their governments back on track so when people from either country reflect on their unique relationship, it inspires both countries to live up to their potential. Right now they're two bullies ganging up on the small guy. One day, hopefully, they'll be two countries giving selflessly and righteously to everyone who needs help.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Originally posted by dave420
I hope Britain and the US can get their governments back on track so when people from either country reflect on their unique relationship, it inspires both countries to live up to their potential. Right now they're two bullies ganging up on the small guy. One day, hopefully, they'll be two countries giving selflessly and righteously to everyone who needs help.

Wishful thinking, I know.

Both the US and Britain are democracies and the Governments they get are because the respective populations vote for them. What is the "small guy" that the US and the UK are ganging up against?