English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Answer without hypocrisy to win the 10 points.

2006-11-13 07:01:41 · 23 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

23 answers

Neither the US nor UK would win. But their enemies would.

2006-11-13 07:06:26 · answer #1 · answered by Do You See What Happens Larry? 5 · 1 0

It's hard to say. Both countries are strong. England has a very strong navy and has numerous ties with countries across the world. The US's military forces are extremely powerful and have alliances across the globe. However, if the war would be in the near future [hypothetically speaking], the US would seem to be at a disadvantage because a large portion of its military is in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, or another country in the Middle East. Tactics wise - I would say that both countries have a fair shot. I think it would all come down to armed forces, which leads me to believe the United States would win.

2006-11-13 15:13:05 · answer #2 · answered by meg s 2 · 0 0

firstly America only won the war of independence because of french military aid.
secondly the UK has nuclear weapons as well as America (i know this must come as a shock to some of you)
numbers is a big factor but when the British empire was forged numbers didn't halt the British army and there is a long distance for that army to travel to the UK especially when considering the more than able British navy.
in conclusion a think a war would end up being a stalemate as in the 1812 war as i think both countries would struggle to find a decisive advantage

2006-11-13 15:29:02 · answer #3 · answered by supremecritic 4 · 1 0

Cool question... but honestly a true toss up now.

I think Iraq has changed the face of war now. Gurilla tactics have been the norm ever since Vietnam, but now since its showed so much on tv, I don't think any war could be war without it becoming a total war( thinking about Gen Sherman*I think* march across the south during civil war).

So with that said, the US would win but the only way it could hold on is if it completly razed their infastructure, isolating groups to quell dissention, and having an overweaming force there to stop renegades and the like. Now if were talking about this senario happenig tomorrow, then thers no way America could hold on for more than two years, our hands are tied now, and that would only get worse for other operations in other countries. But just for a clinical "i beat you, you lost" war, America has no equal....

2006-11-13 16:05:30 · answer #4 · answered by marukus2k 2 · 0 1

Why even ask this question, unless you specify what KIND of war? Of course the U.S. has a MUCH larger fighting force and weaponry and could probably defeat any country that way. But, if it came down to a war of INTELLIGENCE, say, similar to the Cold War, our intel is in such a state of disarray (now anyway), what with the Executive branch not listening to anything but wiretaps on it's own citizens' phones and harvesting emails, the Brits would win. Their educational system is far superior as well!

2006-11-13 15:12:47 · answer #5 · answered by SieglindeDieNibelunge 5 · 0 0

As I am an American citizen my patriotism rules so I would say the United States. Not to mention you cannot overlook our industrial and wartime production capabilities. However, it cannot be denied that Brittan has always had a marvelous determination which sees their citizens through times of crisis. Need evidence of this just examine the resolute nature which was displayed by many in the early days of World War II. Since England is a long standing ally I really hope no one ever has to find out.

CCC: I think you are overlooking the French contribution to the American Revolution. Without their support it is questionable whether we would have won or not.

2006-11-13 15:08:00 · answer #6 · answered by Bryan 7 · 3 1

YOu must not know history. This war was already fought. The US War of Indepence. The US kicked the UK's butt. With a rag tag army of farmers.

PS the UK is one of many nations with England being in the Atlantic Ocean made of Scotland, Ireland, Wales and is part of the commonwealth of which Canada and India are just a few members.

2006-11-13 15:09:57 · answer #7 · answered by CCC 6 · 1 0

Good answer GLH - you stole my thunder.

Although I am a Yank, I do realize that England is just the southeastern part of the main island. Wales, Scotland, and NI also make up the United Kingdom. I think the UK also has a few small dependencies scattered throughout the globe (excuse me if that isn't the correct term, but it seems more PC than colony.)

2006-11-13 15:09:24 · answer #8 · answered by Shane L 3 · 1 0

England because the US always forgets that England is part of the United Kingdom... they would invade England and then relax. Then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would attack their occupying forces and overwhelm them.

Basing a predicted result on what happened during the American War of Independence does seem a bit complacent... I think both armies have moved on since then. And Shane is right - we do have a few other dependencies dotted around the globe. Also something known as the Commonwealth... Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan and half of Africa... most of whom may well join in on our side. Many European countries would also be likely to join in against the US. Even Russia may see the advantage of being allied to the UK if there was a chance of regaining some if its lost "super-power" status.

And yes we do have our own nukes. We would also have quite a few of yours - stored in various bases in the UK, along with a good number of your submarines and warplanes.

We held out on our own against Nazi Germany for two years - they had the best equipped and organised army in the World at the time. Meanwhile, if you want to go back to the 1770's and the British being defeated by a "rat tag" army of Americans, perhaps you should look at the rat tag army of Muslims that are killing so many US troops in Iraq that there is now serious consideration of you withdrawing. Or the rag tag army that forced the US to withdraw from Vietnam. Or the ill-equipped army that fought the US army to a standstill in Korea.

England would only have to let you invade and then inflict a moderate but regular number of casualties by means of guerilla warfare and insurgency so that every news station in the US would be showing body bags arriving home every day and the US would pull out in about two years - earlier if there was a Presidential election coming up.

2006-11-13 15:03:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 4

with all the immigration both ways but mainly USA bound, maybe America would get a shock from the inside especially if you include all the UK countries Scotland Ulster Wales (blood is thicker than water) look what we are up against now both UK and the States from enemies within!

2006-11-13 15:30:20 · answer #10 · answered by cujimmy57ok 2 · 0 0

Too many people would intervene to prevent such a war from happening in the first place. If there even was such a war it would be over before it started. The U.K. is our best ally and we shouldn't ever forget it.

2006-11-13 15:12:19 · answer #11 · answered by braennvin2 5 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers