who would win in a war no nukes because i dont think any side would use them any way being so close.
consider the military, the citizens and the goverment etc
2007-09-01 04:55:29 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
oh my god yes i am day dreaming its just a make belive war and see what people think would happen.
you people who take thisw so seirously really need to get lives you are sad i do questions on this site just for fun. see what people think would happen, i like reading answers for fun, and like seeing who people think are the best
its just for fun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
so shut up with you "oh please" and "stop day dreaming"
2007-09-01 05:14:53 · update #1
ermmmm when were using experience in wars and battles can we use battles from more recent times around 1700- not nearly a 1000 years ago
2007-09-02 23:14:43 · update #2
Oh, Please!
2007-09-01 05:08:31 · answer #1 · answered by Billy TK 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Ooh, a close one in terms of population, wealth and military budget. But I would have to say France. Their military technology is one of the most advanced in the world, arguably the best.
People like bashing the French military while still being ignorant to the fact that the Battle of France was the bloodiest battle for both sides in early WW2, every other allied force was soundly defeated and usually surrendered in their early battles too, nobody cares about ancient wars and France was actually on the winning side in quite a few of their modern wars - nobody fights alone anymore.
Of course, this is all for fun. France and Great Britain have been fairly good chums since the First World War, and it doesn't look like that'll change any time soon.
2007-09-01 07:18:32 · answer #2 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When you consider that 1500 kids brought Paris to it knees when they rioted recently I would think a few well trained Boy Scouts could defeat France.
I don't have much respect for France. Their Foreign Legion has some motto or slogan that reads something like, "We've never won a battle". With a batting average of ZERO I think I would look for another career.
When you consider the Kaiser took them out in an hour and a half, Hitler took 37 minutes and they surrendered to terrorist before a shot was fired I think Great Briton would make fairly short work of them. Now the 1/2% of the population willing to wage urban warfare would weaken the British citizen's resolve in a matter of a few months.
Frankly I think this planet is done with wars where there is a clear winner. The "civilized" governments and citizens won't allow their military to win an engagement. The offensive actions are ceased too early and the military is placed into a position of policing the streets, defending themselve and burying their dead until they are withdrawn.
Can you imagine a professional fighter taking a match where he would not be allowed to hit his apponent. All he would be allowed to do is block or slip as many punches as possible. I don't care how good you are at defense you will be defeated eventually.
War is like sausage; most people should never know how either is made.
2007-09-01 05:28:13 · answer #3 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 2⤊ 4⤋
France,
It has larger standing and reserve armed forces:
France
259,050 active troops
419,000 reserve force
101,400 paramilitary
The UK
187,970 active troops
233,860 reserve force
France also has a President with executive powers in direct control of the military so clear chain of command.
French soldiers while may not have as much battle experience as British soldiers, would have a better state of moral and frame of mind.
France also has easier access to natural resources as well as a large military industrial complex as well as a larger population.
What would make it really hazy is the possibility of foreign involvement. Europe would side with the country that was hit first. America would automatically side with the UK, which could be worse because then everyone else may side with the French because of this, particularly Iran and Russia. China would wait and see.
Any war that would break out between these two countries would create a new world war.
2007-09-03 04:01:14 · answer #4 · answered by eorpach_agus_eireannach 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
I think if you check your time-line gimpy you will find it took the Kaiser longer than 90 mins, as I recall they couldn't defeat the French in 4 years.
And Hitlers mob took a little longer.
1500 Immigrant Anarchists didn't bring the country to its knees either just managed to shove the price of car insurance up for the poor working class sods who live in the area.Your comments with regards the FFL show just how ignorant you are of Military history in General.
The pre-British got there *** kicked by the Angels and Saxons from Germany and after that in 1066 by the Normans from FRANCE, and post 1066 have had to turn tail on more than one occasion, they lost the Americas, India, took time out from Europe 1939 - 44, then there was Egypt, Palestine, & Aden.
Then Malaysia, Ceylon, Rhodesia and barely held their own in Northern Ireland.
No Nation on this planet is so supieriour to others that they are invincible.
2007-09-01 05:53:27 · answer #5 · answered by conranger1 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Stop day dreaming!
Edit: That's real cute Alice! Sorry to be the bearer of reality, BUTT this isn't wonderland.
on second thoughts you sound a lot like the mad hatter, are you? LOL,,,,,, BYEEEEEE! Have fun!!!!
2007-09-01 05:01:45 · answer #6 · answered by ~Celtic~Saltire~ 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋