Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..but US has destroyed Britian numerous times in the old days.
Jog my memory as i dont remember the USA destroying Britain.
Quote:
Britain
United Kingdom: a monarchy in northwestern Europe occupying most of the British Isles; divided into England and Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland; `Great Britain' is often used loosely to refer to the United Kingdom
In a hypothetical situation where the US and the UK were to somehow go to war against each other, Cananda would be incredibly stupid to side with the UK. The US is Canada's largest trading partner, and if Canada declared war on the US in support of the UK, it's economy would greatly suffer immediately. Canada's proximity to the US makes it extremely easy for the US navy to cut off Canada from the rest of the world and starve it to death. Canada may be our largest foreign oil supplier, but the US has enough of its owns reserves that if war happened, we can rely on our own supplies for a while. You think too highly of the damage Canada might hypothetically be able to do to the US. The minute Canada interfered, US forces would move to occupy all major Canadian cities, a ridiculously easy feat considering how close all major Canadian cities are to the US border. In a war against major developed nations, especially one so close to home, the US would not hold back and try to limit the civilian casualty.
Of course that is all a moot point, in an event of a war between the US and the UK, Canada would either remain neutral or if forced to choose, side with the US. It's economy is just too intertwined the US to even consider otherwise. An all out war, would result in an easy victory for the US but if modern rules of combat were followed, it would stretch out to a long war that the US would eventually win. Like I said earlier, against another developed power, it's improbable that the US won't engage in all out war.
It's more likely that countries close to the UK would side with here, and this could include most major European countries such as France, Germany and Italy and the Russians might also be tempted to side with the UK against American aggression. Whilst it's highly unlikely that commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India would react kindly to the UK being attacked. Whilst the Chinese would no doubt see it as an act of US Aggression and would subsequently increase their military capabilities and might even side with the Russians.
Say (no, this is not real) the US and UK bombed each other. Who do you think would win. British has the worlds highest trained troops...but US has destroyed Britian numerous times in the old days. Who do you think would win?
do you mean that British troops are trained while they are stoned or on top of a mountain? In either case, I don't see what advantage that would be.
Say (no, this is not real) the US and UK bombed each other. Who do you think would win. British has the worlds highest trained troops...but US has destroyed Britian numerous times in the old days. Who do you think would win?
The United States destroyed Britain in wars? Numerous times?
The US and Great Britain had TWO wars against each other in their history. That does not sound like numerous to me. In both wars almost none of the fighting and damage took place in the British Isles, that does not sound like destroyed to me. In both cases the land battles took place in North America although the tiny American navy did heavily attack Britain's overseas shipping.
The last war, the War of 1812 is almost totally forgotten today in England, rarely mentioned in the USA (largely replaced by the American Civil War) but is considered more important to Canada.
LOL ok whatever, you must've forgotten that us British can just fly over the ocean and hit you then.
What? Is not like the US can't see you coming across the ocean with the billions of dollars they put into their advanced radar systems. And let's not get started on air superiority which the US easily takes hands down.
However if there was a war the whole world would suffer due to these two countries being economic powerhouses.
It's more likely that countries close to the UK would side with here, and this could include most major European countries such as France, Germany and Italy and the Russians might also be tempted to side with the UK against American aggression. Whilst it's highly unlikely that commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India would react kindly to the UK being attacked. Whilst the Chinese would no doubt see it as an act of US Aggression and would subsequently increase their military capabilities and might even side with the Russians.
Yes, countries close to the UK would be more likely to side with the UK. However, at the end of the day their decision whether to support the UK or ally with the US would ultimately come down to what benefits them the most. Also, this thread is making it seem as though if any hypothetical war would be as a result of US aggression, which is ridiculous. The UK has a much longer history of aggression and war mongering than the US does. The US was born of UK imperialism.
The Chinese and the Russians would only join the conflict if there was a direct threat to them. Neither country has close ties with the UK, and China's economy relies heavily on US consumerism. They would not risk war and possible economic ruin over the UK.
The world is more economically linked than it has ever been. Developed nations, despite any alliances, will have to think twice before engaging another developed nation in war. Until resources, such as water, start running out, it's unlikely that we'll see developed nations waging war against one another simply based on alliances. The fact that the US is also ridiculously more powerful than any other country in existence today also keeps the threat of a world war at bay. I'm sure we remember the constant threat of a nuclear war when two super powers existed.
The UK would win because we have virtually every European country on our side and also the commonwealth of nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc) and because the US normally starts the wars so virtually the whole world would be in Britain's side.
The UK would win because we have virtually every European country on our side and also the commonwealth of nations (Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc) and because the US normally starts the wars so virtually the whole world would be in Britain's side.
The UK is every bit the warmonger the US is.
The difference is the US has the power to go through with it, while the UK relies on the US to do the job for them. Latest example, The UK wanted a military strike in Syria, the US said it wouldn't help them, and the UK backed down.
Canada will never join the UK in a war against the US, and the combined forces of the EU still wont be a match against the military power of the US
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the US and UK got in a war
