WWIII : USA vs UK - Including all their respective allies.... who would win the (hypothetical) WAR ???????????

Question

Totally hypothetical question.... no stirring, consider the USA & UK are not allies... whats your opinions... : ) All countries included, if you're an enemy of one, you join the other

Not specifics, but think about aspects like >>> ALLIES? Size of Forces? Military Expenditure? WMDs? Geographical positions?

Long winded Q. but if you got an opinion ANSWER!

------------------------------...

My thinking is the UK(& allies) would massively overpower the other side in all aspects bar expenditure! PEOPLE v $$$
I would guess/expect (probably missed many, tell me):


UK> India/Australia/France/ (major allies) - Commenwealth - many EU nations - Russia/Cuba/Iran/N.Korea (anti USA, and not so much UK)... etc.

USA> Israel/Japan/Mexico/ (major allies) Pakistan (anti India), MAYBE China (by default... sino-russian split, strong pakistan ally etc.) S.Arabia?, many S.American nations.... etc.

Answer 1

Quite Frankly this would be a situation that would involve too many hypothetical answers. Firstly who would be on what side? The Canadians, yes part of the Commonwealth, but also the landlock border is too open and as has happened before, not possible to defend. Also size of armed forces, and logisitcal problems would force them to ally with the US. Mexico the same. As for other states, well lets put the EU block together, Russia would probably come in same side, but could be US, Japan, China and Korea, I would suspect go US, unless the economic situation was otherwise. Th Australians and New Zealanders I think would look at the above states and decide then due to the tactical postion and forces availiable. India and Pakistan I suspect would never join the same side and choose oposites as they would see the opportunity to use the Conflict for their own means. The Middle East bar Isreal would join a coalition against the US, Isreal would be dependant on what US forces where around. Northern and Central African States would also look at the world situation and see who was for who before commitments. The Southern African States would look to South Africa for a lead, I suspect they would come in against the US, dependant on the reason for aggression. South America again would look at world situation and go with who they suspect was the stronger nations.
However. The main problem to look at is in this sort of Hypothetiacal conflict 95% of the countries of the globe would be Neutral, or non belligerant nations. UNLESS the situation politically changed.
The other thing is what was the reason for the conflict? Why would the UK as a Nation declare war on the US? What would be the catalyist for such a conflict?

Answer 2

If you consider the UK as a full part of the EU and the Germans and French are now in control of the EU Armed forces. Well then you wind up with the same paradox that faced us during the cold war. How does an armed force with 20 different Languages fight one with 2 (English and Spanish)? It also depends on the battlefield (in Europe or in the US?) when you consider logistics. You would have to assume an all out naval battle and give the decided edge to the US forces as long as it is maintained in the Middle of the ocean away from Land Based support. It would soon be a war of attrition with the American Liberals and the French All trying to sue for peace or surrender.

Answer 3

If the war remained non nuclear then America would lose because they would have to invade us.Defending our little island would be far easier than attacking because of the distances that they would have to travel.Unfortunately America has so few friends that even countries like Russia and China would help and they could invade America alot easier and then the Americans would have to fight a war on all sides as well as invading us.
If you think any one that currently supports America would join forces you are very much mistaken.America is the Lion king of the jungle with the whole jungle is just waiting for him to get old so he can be attacked.

Answer 4

Hypothetically....
England maintained a Huge Empire until the turn of the century and many of those countries would band together with the U.K..
The U.S.S.R would also band together with the U.K as there are many instances of conflict between the U.S and Russia..
Most of Europe would be behind the Brits...as would most of the Asian continent...
The U.S.A would probably be on its own because of the amount of countries it has upset...
i would say that the war would be incredibly close but the U.K and her allies would probably arise victorious as there is little defence against numbers and superior tactics...
As oppose to Nuking everything...
saying that though we would probably be dead and the planet reduced to a smoking radioactive asteroid..
because if the U.S launched nukes then so would everyone else...so there would probably be no clear cut winner in that circumstance...

Answer 5

I think the americans have shot themselves in the foot over the years simply by using CIA to train what are now classed as insurgents. As long as the media are controlled by the US government the majority of americans will believe they are winning the war, if what we are suffering in the UK through successive government mistakes is anything to go by the American public would call for their troops to come home and no doubt the only policy left would be to nuke the triangle of evil.
I'm not saying they can't chew chewing gum and ride a bike at the same time, but blue on blue murders, are becoming too frequent and alienating the general public from thinking Americans have any prestige left in the wider world.

Answer 6

Going to keep it sensible...ie conventional (non-nuclear, chemical biological).

I think it would end in stalemate, rather like against Germany in WWII before America joined.

The Battle of Britain was the air war, granted, without the US we would never have retaken Europe, but with the RAF and the Navy we could have repulsed any attack.

BTW: Saudi Arabia is unlikely to side with the US, 14 of the 19 9/11 operatives were Saudi Arabian. None were Afghans or Iraqis,,,go figure..

Answer 7

If you put it that way, the US would win. We have Naval Superiority and Air Superiority. It would be an interesting war, but the US would come out on top. If the UK has France as a major ally, they have major problems because France isn't going to do anything.

Answer 8

Such a war would almost instantly result in the end of the world as we know it as nuclear devices would simultaneously be detonated in all major cities and at strategic targets in both countries. This is of course the argument in favour of nukes as it is a great leveler and nuclear powers are less likely to wage war because of the guaranteed threat of retaliation by ICBM or a briefcase device. e.g. If Iraq genuinely was in possession of nukes in 2003 the UK/USA would never have invaded and because North Korea does have nukes the USA provides her with crude oil and food supplies instead of invading.

Answer 9

Let's face it; when you have a nation that spend more on it's national defense than the rest of the world COMBINED, that's one hack of a hurdle to overcome. Not to mention that if pressed, the United States has a manufacturing capability that can only be approached by china. It would really depend on how ruthless the sides decided to get. In a conventional side the U.S. has just a overwhelming superiority.

Answer 10

Clearly a no-brainer. The US would win. We ARE the world's only superpower. For every stealth and hi-tech weapon you know about, there are two more in development that are still classified that you won't see for awhile. If push came to shove and it was WWIII, there's always the huge, end of the world nuclear arsenal that we could lob at them. It wouldn't be pretty, but it would do the job (and toast the planet in the process).

But obviously this would never happen. We smacked them around pretty good back in the 1770's for independence and they clearly know better than to provoke the US again.....(good thing we're friendly).