King Charles of Canada makes a rare public speech calling for aid from the Commonwealth to support Europe in defending against the US. It’s broadcast on Canadian TV.
Who do you join? The US or the UK?
King Charles of Canada makes a rare public speech calling for aid from the Commonwealth to support Europe in defending against the US. It’s broadcast on Canadian TV.
Who do you join? The US or the UK?
I am much more suited to snarky online comments than actual combat.
Gun to my head, have to choose a side for which to fight? Probably the UK, I trust it more than the US.
But have you considered that the US is most certainly going to win?
I don’t know, we beat 'em last time, I’d bet we can burn the white house twice.
I wonder about that. On the face of it, yes they ought to. But a couple of thoughts might tip the scale:
And while I can’t vouch for the source, in a few categories the two actually seem relatively evenly matched: https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_European_Union_EU_vs_USA
I also wonder how much air superiority the US would really have. Assuming other countries weren’t letting the US use their air bases, they’d have to project air power from their carriers. Google seems to think about 64 fighters per carrier, as the US only has 20 carriers, which gives it an effective air fleet of about 1,300 aircraft compared to Europe’s 5000.
Agreed
True, but America already maintains these, even without ongoing conflicts. If they moved carrier groups from the Pacific, even easier.
I don’t think so. They seem pretty okay with casualties in every war since Vietnam. Compounded with the likelihood most casualties wouldn’t be extracted to the US until the end of a major conflict, it gets even easier.
Sadly, this could legally work. The USA military is beholden to the president over anyone else. So long as an action isn’t unconstitutional, it’s legal if it comes from POTUS.
Those supply lines aren’t subject to attack though. They’d have to defend them against submarine attacks across thousands and thousands of kilometers. In that sort of fight, advantage to the attacker.
Not in the numbers required for a ground war in Europe. America lost some 7,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and its been considered a major debacle. Consider the number of casualties in Ukraine…
Oh, probably legal. Buy there would be massive protests, maybe riots etc. It would be a huge internal headache and distraction.
Counter argument. The US probably knows the current location of everything that could pose a credible threat to either a nuclear submarine or an aircraft carrier.
Defunding a large ocean perimeter is a lot easier when you know where everything is. Again, the first step would probably be to disable most of this stuff.
i don’t like to give the US credit but they have indisputably the most advanced global military logistics of any country in history.
The Americans can drop 100,000 troops anywhere in the world, have complete supply lines established in 24 hours, and have immediate air and sea superiority. If we are talking Europe, they already have a significant military presence in place.
The US military is immense and insanely equipped. The hundreds of billions of stuff sent to Ukraine is mostly old stuff that would have aged out anyway. They have not even touched anything they would use themselves.
I know “Britannia rules the Sea” but honestly, look how many aircraft carriers the US has. No contest. Also, how many cruise missiles do they have to disable military infrastructure.
US intelligence is similarly sprawling and deep pocketed. Their intelligence failures are almost always political. In an actual military led conflict, this puts them at an extreme advantage.
The Americans have also shown extremely effective use of patriotism and propaganda. It is unlikely that resistance at home would emerge quickly enough to prevent a successful invasion.
As of late, they have also demonstrated the ability to absolutely give the middle finger to their allies and international diplomatic bodies.
Where the Americans suck is in holding territory and in maintaining a focused agenda. A war with the UK and the US would probably result in regime change on both sides ( one through force and one through popularity ). However, in the UK, they would end up otherwise leaving pretty much the entire bureaucracy in place and, after wasting craploads of money, would probably pull out and go home. This is where all that resistance at home and abroad stuff would overpower them.
At the end of the day, Britain would be largely unchanged after the US pulled back out. The US would have gained almost nothing. If they were lucky, things would look much as they do now.
In fact, now that I have walked through it, I guess the answer is that I would certainly not fight against the US. It would be for nothing. Better to just wait.
In fact, the UK would be better off not fighting too hard and then just negotiating themselves back into power afterwards. I mean, the PM would have to change but that is hardly a big deal.
I am wondering what policy the UK would have to abandon. I mean, something must have caused all this in the first place.