The Commonwealth vs USA

Americans have 6,000 Abrams tanks, 12 (?) aircraft carriers, no idea how many subs, and 'the commonwealth' can take them on? get real.

reply to post by OzTruth


It fit as in past tense. As in when I made the post, not later or now. Really?

I just finished reading an article by soldiers recently returned from the rockpile and one of the major currents of the article was the feeling of brotherhood that the men felt with other coalition forces. To have to sit and read this 'friendly discussion' is an affront to the sacrifice paid by all those in danger's way.

Anyway, you are correct and I am only prolonging this embarrassment by continuing to post in it. Enjoy your discussion, I won't interrupt it anymore.

reply to post by pikestaff


Yeah a British armada and an Aussie armada would be a great match. Not to mention the other countries New Zealand, India, Canada. But hey as I am about to point out in my next post. The US can't do wars on their own. So you'd probably get exposed. Good points though.

reply to post by Montana


I see you didnt answer my question.

I will answer it for you.

The US has needed help in every war they have ever been in or started hence why they would never fight the Commonwealth because they would be on their own

Opening attack On March 20, 2003 at approximately 02:30 UTC or about 90 minutes after the lapse of the 48-hour deadline, at 05:33 local time, explosions were heard in Baghdad. There is now evidence that various Special Forces and Special Operations troops from the coalition (led by the Australian SAS but including British SAS, the U.S. Army's Delta Force, U.S. Navy SEALs, U.S. Marine Corps Force Recon and U.S. Air Force Combat Controllers) crossed the border into Iraq well before the air war commenced, in order to guide strike aircraft in air attacks. At 03:15 UTC, or 10:15 p.m. EST, U.S. President George W. Bush announced that he had ordered the coalition to launch an "attack of opportunity" against targets in Iraq. As soon as this word was given the troops on standby crossed the border into Iraq. These troops were led by the 4th bomb disposal unit which at the time had three RAF Regiment airmen from 15 squadron on a tour.

Key point - led by Australian and British SAS

JOHN STEWART: These are the type of sea mines being removed by Australian Navy clearance divers at the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr. Reports that the Iraqi's left up to 70 mines outside the port are holding up crucial shipments of wheat, food and medical supplies. BRIGADIER MIKE HANNAN, AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE: The port city needs to be made safe for both allied merchant shipping that can be brought in to deliver both military and, of course, humanitarian aid supplies. And you're aware that there are a number of aid ships now standing off the port waiting to deliver wheat and other provisions as we speak. JOHN STEWART: It's a job Australian Navy divers performed during the first Gulf War, and may take several more days to complete. Umm Qasr is the gateway to southern Iraq and the country's second largest city, Basra.

Not just the 2nd Iraq war but the first as well. Geez these Americans love doing the hard work lol

Back to school for you Montana.

reply to post by OzTruth


OK, I'll play along with the hypothetical scenario you propose.

But you are going to have to throw out half of the orignial list in your OP because *all* of the Caribbean and probably most of the African countries must be discounted as I'm 80% sure that they would *not* support the Commonwealth! Especially with any incentives from the USA.

That being said, it is probably a coin-toss


After all, Virginia, Mass., and some other "states" still call semantic "Commonwealths" and people seem pretty riled up on this side of the Atlantic/pond....

It is sadly impossible, as like WW2 the whole of the Commonwealth would be vastly under utilised..

Just think of the difference it would have made to WW2 if the upper classes utilised all the resources they had back then.. yet they where so far up their own bottoms they preferred American support (arms and men) and as such it is no wonder most stuck 2 fingers up at the Britain post WW2.

Which is sadly the way it would always go unless those in charge take their heads out of their bums and that is a trillion to one chance... I have more chance of winning this weeks Lottery than they do in realising what they could achieve with a united and friendly Commonwealth.

Much of the Commonwealth is made up of third world nations. Most of it is made up of republics, so it's quite far off from "serving only the interests of the monarchy". The Commonwealth is also not a military alliance.

Unless an invasion was organised through Canada, there's no way an invasion would work. The US Navy dwarfs all others and would easily outmatch the combined navies of the Commonwealth. An occupation of the US would be impossible due to how armed their populace is and the sheer size of the place. They also have several times more nuclear warheads than us.

In short this is a stupid thread based on a bollocks premise that would make even Tom Clancy vomit.

Originally posted by OzTruth
reply to post by bluemirage5

 

Don't forget India!!!! 1.2 billion people and as for technology the US aren't that far advanced. I'm sure we have alot of tricks up our sleeve too. as for the SAS(Aus) being superior I know that for a fact. My uncle is British Army and he says the same thing. He mentioned that its well known in the field and its the reputation they possess, that they are the best. Coming from him a veteran he said it's the desert training and selection process. soldiers get hand picked to try out and still 97% of them fail. amazing.

edit on 24-10-2011 by OzTruth because: no reason lol

It has always been like that . The Anzac troop along with the Gurkhas are the best soldiers in the world .

I tend to agree that the Commonwealth is a great force than the crazy undisciplined US troops . They have weapons but end up killing their own troops with them , beacuse they are crazy arrogant people

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
a united and friendly Commonwealth.

We had that once. We called it the Empire. It was fun for a bit, but thankfully we've got past that sort of thing these days.

Although greater ties between the Commonwealth nations would be nice, particularly the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. All four have the Queen as head of state. All four have fairly similar cultures (minus Quebec, but they don't really matter). All four could do with a bigger place on the world stage. Forming closer ties between these nations, such as an EU style organisation + perhaps even a common military makes a good deal of sense to me.

Originally posted by OzTruth
reply to post by Montana

 

it fit or it fits? I understand it's hard for you to comprehend friendly discussion especially when it seems like you might not be number one.

Just remember if you dont know. Australia SAS are called on to do the US favours.

Hmmmm let's see, they were in Iraq doing the recon on Baghdad airport months before the invasion. They cleared the mines from Basra harbour and the Australian Navy paved the way for the landing of US troops. and now we provide back up in Afghanistan. Tell me can the US fight a war by itself or do you often need help???

Well, we can fight for ourselves, does everyone forget the revolutionary war, or the bloodiest war in our history, the civil war. Also sorry to tell you fools but there are more guns sold here in america than any other country in the world. Also you commenwealth nations can suk it cause you are all just britains biatch and britain is our biatch so do the math. Also you guys have no idea what a runaway black budget can do, they say our military technology has evolved at a rate of 40 years to 1 over civilian technology. So take 60 years since ww2 and multiple that by 40 u get 2400. So the black budget stuff if over 2 millenia more advanced than the civilian sector. Just imagine if shtf and we have to break out the big guns. Also I read an article in scientific american that we have had laser weaponry since the 90's and the UN has actually banned thier use. So yeah does aus have haarp? or a satalite weapon system in space?

Originally posted by fishman1985
Also you commenwealth nations can suk it cause you are all just britains biatch

No, they aren't.

they say our military technology has evolved at a rate of 40 years to 1 over civilian technology

'They' are idiots.

Also I read an article in scientific american that we have had laser weaponry since the 90's

Before that even.

en.wikipedia.org...

and the UN has actually banned thier use.

No.

So yeah does aus have haarp?

HAARP is not a weapon.

or a satalite weapon system in space?

Nobody does, yet.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
The Commonwealth nations especially Britain, Scotland, Australia, NZ and Canada ...

Small point. Scotland is part of Britain aka the United Kingdom.

The Commonwealth is not a military alliance. There is no obligation for any member to support another in military conflict.

The US would probably seek to consult the UK should there be the risk of conflict between themselves and a Commonwealth member. This would be a “lesson learned” as the US got a lot of stick when they invaded Grenada in 1983.

The UK has bilateral military agreements with several Commonwealth nations.

In the reality of the “what if” scenario. One would wonder how the combined might of the Commonwealth could transport themselves to Fiji, or how the combined might of the US could actually invade and subdue Gibraltar without (ahem) attracting the attention of the rest of Europe.

‘Nuff said.

Regards

Wow....

Sounds like someone has absolutely no idea on how wars are fought.

First of all, the US dwarfs the "commonwealth" in industrial power. Everyone always says "the US doesn't make anything anymore" While true that the US isn't the great exporter of goods that it used to be, it's still an industrial powerhouse, and if anything like WWI or WWII happened again, like the flip of a light switch the US could ramp up production to a scale that would be straight up ridiculous. Try to match the US in industrial production, it just won't happen, sorry.

Next up, technology wise the US is overwhelmingly superior to the commonwealth nations. Bash the ability of US troops all you want, they have the greatest toys around and know how to use them. Period.

Third on the list of why the OP is ridiculous, the nuclear arsenal of the US, and it's ability to deliver those nukes anywhere on the globe in a very short period of time is drastically greater than the entire commonwealth combined.

Bigger, more powerful air force, navy, larger country, larger population, higher level of military technology, there is just no contest whatsoever. The OP is akin to saying the UK by itself could have defeated Nazi Germany. Both are ridiculous.The only reason they fared as well as they did during WWII was because of the massive support of American industry, and then later the American military itself.

There is a reason the US is the bully of the world: because it can. You can't go around harassing almost every nation on earth and get away with it unless you can back up what you say. Not saying it's a good thing, and it won't last forever, but for now saying that the commonwealth could challenge the US is nothing but a really funny joke.l

Then think about a land invasion. What would be easier, invading America with hundreds of millions of people, millions upon millions of those armed to the teeth with powerful firearms, or invading small countries with a disarmed population? Just think it over.

Originally posted by James1982
larger country, larger population

Your post was absolutely spot on, apart from the above;

The Commonwealth of Nations has a total land area of 31,462,574 kmsq. compared to 9,826,675 kmsq. for the USA.

The Commonwealth of Nations has a total population of 2,100,000,000 (according to 2005 estimates), compared to 312,513,000 for the USA (according to 2011 estimates).

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon

Originally posted by James1982
larger country, larger population

Your post was absolutely spot on, apart from the above;

The Commonwealth of Nations has a total land area of 31,462,574 kmsq. compared to 9,826,675 kmsq. for the USA.

The Commonwealth of Nations has a total population of 2,100,000,000 (according to 2005 estimates), compared to 312,513,000 for the USA (according to 2011 estimates).

Excellent post.... Don't forget to mention that if they didn't have the commonwealth as a current ally they would be left with France, Germany and Japan. Hahahahaha sad isn't it?

Originally posted by OzTruth
Excellent post.... Don't forget to mention that if they didn't have the commonwealth as a current ally they would be left with France, Germany and Japan. Hahahahaha sad isn't it?

Germany, France and Japan are (or could be, if needs be) all fairly good.

www.globalfirepower.com...

reply to post by UngoodWatermelon


come to think of it, all three would side with the Commonwealth instead of the US, they know whose boss and they wouldnt be that dumb... lol

Man, Australians are a surly lot! Honestly, I only know one person from that country but he's one of the biggest marks for Australia to a point where he feels the need to treat me like dirt.

Aussies are funny and probably too afraid to admit that they would never cross the U.S because of what we could do to them.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by fiftyfifty

 

The USA may have more man power but they are undesciplined, ill-trained and not a very bright lot; sorry guys but it's true.

All Australian soldiers are trained to equal that of America's Delta forces, thats how good our Aussie boys are.

Professional soldiers are predictable; but the world is full of dangerous amateurs.

Myself? I love the people of Oz and think we could very easily co-opt them with a good BBQ and beer.

If you are talking about a drinking contest?, then AUS will be the winner.

reply to post by OzTruth


What is the point of the thread? 54 countries? The vast majority of these countrys would not be able to defend themselves against the Crips, let alone the US military. To have them listed as legitimate resources in an armed conflict makes your entire idea comical.

The Commonwealth would be destroyed by sheer fire power alone, The commonwealth would also never unite against the USA. There would be many countries switching sides and, without question, once Vanatu comes over to the US, the game is over.