The Commonwealth vs USA

What are some of the catch phrases us AMERICAN's use oh yeah "BRING IT" or "PUT UP OR SHUT UP" until then run on home your mother is calling

Im not saying who would win so I guess bring all 54 and we will see

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).

Your right.

I was more of thinking about the UK vs the US, as I would imagine if such a situation were to arise that's who would be pulling the strings. Defeat the UK and odds are the rest of the commonwealth nations would give up. Combined, the commonwealth nations may have more landmass and a larger population, but you don't have to invade the whole commonwealth as one singular country. To invade the US you do. (with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii of course)

You are right though, as I phrased it I was incorrect on the numbers.

Bump.

I agree that the SAS are among the worlds best soldiers, but as mentioned already there are only a handful of them, if they wre active on US soil they would be well outnumbered (could an ICBM hit the barracks is Swanborne and take them out the picture?).

Curtial in this hypothetical conflict is Naval power--Australia just does not have the fleet to even annoy the US Navy, neither do Rule Britannia.

A friend of mine who server in the Australia Navy in Timor and Iraq once mentioned an "incident" off Timor involving the Indonesian Navy--I wont go into detail but my friend was VERY clear that if they wernt supported by a US destroyer then they would have been F#

Being that I think this hypothetical conflict will be mainly fought at sea--there are 2 strategic advantages the commonwealth has over the US navy:
1. Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt could be destroyed very quickly by RAAF air strikes, leaving the US without any communications to their submarine fleet in the souther hemisphere
2. Deigo Garcia IS still property of the crown, and possibly close enough to India for a (hot) missile strike.

The US could easily destableize many of the smaller commonwealth nations without sending in troops. Really IF a conflict were to occur it would be fought on economic fronts..

The only hope the Commonwealth would have would be from their major trading partners, in the case of Canadia and Australia: China. If China decides to weigh in then I guess we just started WW4...

On a side note, the ANU classify the USA as Australia's biggest threat to sovereignty... hmmm

Really tho, we in the Commonwealth settle our disputes in a civilized manner; with cricket!, and we know the yanks cant play. So what if we cant beat them at war; we can beat them at cricket!!

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
America has a bigger military than all those countries combined and then some. It wouldn't even be a contest. The commonwealth would be destroyed. Lets just be friends, there are enough enemies out there.

NO IT DOESNT...What a heap of sh*t

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by OzTruth

 

The Commonwealth nations especially Britain, Scotland, Australia, NZ and Canada fought more wars than the Americans; our Commonwealth soldiers are far more experienced, better trained and far better desciplined. Our SAS is the world's very best (coming in 2nd are the Israeli special units). Any of the American special forces/units are no match for the SAS out on the field.

The IAF have the very best pilots although the USA have better aircrafts.

What the USA have on their side is the world's best military technology. Without America's technology, the Americans are no match for the 5 main Commonwealth nations.

Scotland is a part of Britain.

Defeat the UK and odds are the rest of the commonwealth nations would give up.

I doubt that very much.

The UK is not the "boss" country of the Commonwealth. It is just a normal member like the other 50-odd members. It's not the largest member state in terms of population (India is); it's not got the Commonwealth's largest economy (India has); and it's not got the Commonwealth's largest military (India has).

If the US and the whole of the Commonwealth went to war the US would be going to war against an entity with a population of about 2 billion - almost a third of the world's population. And if all, or most, of its members were involved in the war against the USA militarily then it wouldn't matter if the UK is defeated. The remaining Commonwealth members would, more than likely, continue the fight and the chances are the US would still be defeated - the US would, for a start, be up against mighty India, which has a standing army of 1.32 million troops.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
America has a bigger military than all those countries combined and then some.

No, it doesn't.

Just one Commonwealth member state - India - has a larger military than the USA.

The US military has 1.5 million active personnel and 1.4 million in reserve. It has a paramilitary of around 11,000. This gives it a total manpower of just over 3 million.

India has 1.3 million active personnel and 2.1 million in reserve. It has a paramilitary of around 1.3 million. This gives it a total manpower of around 4.7 million.

The Indian army is also the largest standing voluntary army on the planet.

And India is just one Commonwealth member state. If all the Commonwealth member states combined their militaries it would be scary.