Britain Vs America?

[Codelyy 1,288]

I know there was a war with Britain Vs America? already but who would win if Britain and America went to war right now so you know tanks and jets and stuff?

 

EDIT: I think I was like... 13 when I made this post so excuse the awful grammar  - 21 year old me

[MLPForums Phanact 1,374]

I think America would win due to sheer numbers but in reality I can't see the US and UK ever going to war.

 

AFAIK, Britain have a very strong naval force though.

[RazzyJam 1,519]

[The post you are looking for has been deleted]

Edited January 20, 2019 by RazzyJam

[Harmonic Revelations 8,835]

The United States has the second largest active military in the world, with 1,429,995 servicemen currently active, and the tenth most reserve troops, with 850,880.

 

The British Armed Forces has 205,330 active personnel and about 181,000 reserves.

 

The USA would win, it's a certainty.

 

Although with our diplomatic relationships, I can't imagine the US and Britain ever going to war.

 

In addition, the number of nuclear weapons either nation has is irrelevant in such a scenario because Britain and the US are so physically close to each other that the effects of launching a nuclear bomb would reach their own shores.

 

The US would crush the British in such a confrontation, in addition, if the US started doing the draft again, there are 60,620,143 males in the United States fit for military service, with only about 10,000,000 fit for service in Britain.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Harmonic Revelations

[Malinter 3,064]

I'll tell who will win. the first side to find the othersides submarines.

 

and 3 or 3000 IBCMs, doesn't matter. only takes maybe 5-10 well placed strikes to disable either countries national security.

 

I'd also say the US army is a bit too tech reliant, they seem to be trying to automate a lot of there military these days.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Malinter

[Taviscratch 453]

If there was an all-out war between Britain and America (which there wouldn't be) then America would decimate our forces through sheer numbers.

 

The US training program for their soldiers is a joke compared to that of British soldiers, hence why there's a ridiculous amount of friendly fire and/or the killing of innocents when the American military are involved in a war. This is also caused by their hilarious excuse for an intelligence agency. The British invented modern espionage; wrote the book on it, you could say. There's no professionalism in the US military at all but since America seems to think it has to interfere in international disputes with it's overcompensating military force then yes, they would blow the crap out of Britain if, for some unforeseeable reason, we went to war.

 

And as for the nuke argument: Really? You're actually taking that into account? If the cold war didn't cause any nuclear warheads to be used then a war between America and Britain wouldn't. Nobody has the inclination to launch nukes, they're for posturing, not for military deployment.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Taviscratch

[BrilliantVenture 334]

America is like the world's Mary Sue...

 

Severely overpowered...

 

But just like Kristen Stewart's acting career, it may be short lived in the long run...

[ReverseFaller 2,484]

I'm thinking that America would win in the end. I can't imagine why these two countries would fight each other in the first place though.

[Le Kvlt Dawn 2,364]

Well of course America would win, but such a war would be completely asinine. Even if America did win our economy would suffer greatly, and we wouldn't be able to trade with Britain anymore.

 

So in the long run both sides would lose.

[~Lawful Haze~ 173]

The United States has the second largest active military in the world, with 1,429,995 servicemen currently active, and the tenth most reserve troops, with 850,880.

 

The British Armed Forces has 205,330 active personnel and about 181,000 reserves.

 

The USA would win, it's a certainty.

 

Although with our diplomatic relationships, I can't imagine the US and Britain ever going to war.

 

In addition, the number of nuclear weapons either nation has is irrelevant in such a scenario because Britain and the US are so physically close to each other that the effects of launching a nuclear bomb would reach their own shores.

 

The US would crush the British in such a confrontation, in addition, if the US started doing the draft again, there are 60,620,143 males in the United States fit for military service, with only about 10,000,000 fit for service in Britain.

 

Would the radiation really travel across Ireland and along the entire lenght of the Atlantic ocean? Especially with a prevailing westerly wind?

[Scootalove 10,689]

I don't really see the US and the United Kingdon going to war because, we have a trading relationship with them and other countries as well. But if there was a war, the United States would win due to their huge number of military forces and I think that the UK would put up a good fight with the result to no avail.

[CT-1138 3,182]

Well of course America would win, but such a war would be completely asinine. Even if America did win our economy would suffer greatly, and we wouldn't be able to trade with Britain anymore.

 

So in the long run both sides would lose.

Pretty much. The US doesn't have the economy for a war, we sank our own ass during a manhunt that we got sidetracked for 10 useless years in. So, we'd has the military capabilities to turn the British Isle into a smoldering rock, but in the end, our economy would be so tanked and citizen morale would be so low, I doubt we could ever recover.

[NightOwl 912]

America would definitely win because of superior fire-power and troop numbers but like others said I can't ever imagine these two countries going against each other. 

[DenialZombie 82]

Hey there! I work for one of these militaries! Wow! So: here the answer has been said a dozen times already, but the nuance may have escaped you.

 

Yes: The US has something like ten times the military might of the UK, so they would win the battle-shooty-explodey part of a head-on war right now, but that's not all.

 

Yes: The US is hurting for cash and borrowing too much, and has been managing a severely complex cycle of debt and repayment for over two hundred years, and may continue to do so. It appears much worse than it is right now because our legislature is ineffective to the point of being completely useless. Buh.

 

The real point here is who would really win? The US would easily force a surrender from the UK, but really, what then. As said, we're running on reserves: extensive reserves (we mostly owe money to ourselves, in our convoluted scheme), but finite reserves nonetheless.

 

In a war between ANY two first-world powers, the winner will ultimately be the more stable economy. Even if infrastructure is decimated (which means to remove one tenth, by the way, and was originally conceived as a punishment for poorly performing Roman legions), just the presence of skilled workers and an educated middle class will turn it to advantage within two generations through rebuilding.

 

The UK has better education, more stable currency, and a thriving middle class, like the US used to have before we decided that hypercapitalism was a good thing without even knowing it.

 

The US has decent education, but not great, and struggling even to stay as decent as it is, with higher education long having become prohibitively expensive. (I joined the Navy because, after college, I had no money, and more debt than I could ever hope to pay off, just for an example.) The dollar is worth about half as much as the pound, and is in constant flux. The ends that the FED goes to to maintain the value of our economy (forget the currency, because it's virtual and has no intrinsic value except faith in that economy) are preposterous, and leave it's standing precarious at best. The US also has one of the highest income and wealth disparagements in the world, if not the highest, and there is no more "middle class" to speak of. We are all slaves to money, with terrible access to formal education, and an aging workforce working within an obsolete infrastructure doesn't really help.

 

In closing, though the US would win the war, and even force terms upon the UK, it would be forever wrecked, and might not ever regain its prior "glory", if that's what this is. The UK, however, would bounce back hard, much like Japan after WWII, and easily come out on top. In fact, the US would probably assume responsibilities for protecting the UK as part of the surrender. Oh, the irony!

[Splashee 28,566]

Britain would easily win with their nuclear arsenal and crazy (somewhat orange) president!

[Derpy Pon-3 5,650]

America, UK has 120 usable nuclear warheads and America has 4,018. America could destroy all of Britain's populated cities in an instant, although America would then be destroyed by the world war that would come from such an assault, but this is all theoretical, right?

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,441]

The US and UK are close allies. They may have disagreements at times but have a tight knitted friendship for the most part. 
If this sort of thing were to happen, it’s likely the US would win. 

[Dreambiscuit 10,094]

America is a superpower so I don’t think we’d be an easy pushover, and Britain is a smaller nation with fewer resources. Granted, small countries have done some extraordinary things (consider Germany in WW2 for example), and I imagine Britain wouldn’t go down without making it interesting at the very least. But I think the US would take the win.  

[Rainbow Cloud 18,309]

America would win easily, they have the most powerful military in the world and Britain's military is small and much diminished from what it once was.

[Here No Longer 5,276]

America can defeat any country in a military conflict easily, if the resources we have for our absurdly expensive war machine went to good use instead of rifles that can be very unreliable in most weather.

 

Nonetheless, America would win in every possible scenario against Britain.

[Nsxile 27,297]

I find it odd that you would assume there would be "winners" in this theoretical war, considering we both have nuclear weapons. I'd say the only "winners" would be those who survive the nuclear fallout and the world wide nuclear winter generated by the sheer number of nuclear detonations (and ensuing firestorms).

9 hours ago, Derpy Pon-3 said:

America, UK has 120 usable nuclear warheads and America has 4,018. America could destroy all of Britain's populated cities in an instant, although America would then be destroyed by the world war that would come from such an assault, but this is all theoretical, right?

120 usable nuclear warheads is enough to obliterate most of your cities, and turn most of the US into an uninhabitable irradiated wasteland though (and also have the potential to start a nuclear winter across the earth that would last for years and lead to famines world wide).  So that's nothing to scoff at and something to be very much feared (100 15 kiloton nuclear bombs detonated are estimated to be would be all that are needed to start said event). And would you really use all of them, considering the radioactive fallout would also likely effect Ireland, France, Norway etc  as well (not to mention the other horrific effects it would likely have on Europe)? Also, while you could fire them at the UK, you couldn't exactly fire them at the submarines carrying them and we would know a good few minutes in advance of them hitting us if the US had fired them at us, so a retaliatory strike is pretty much guaranteed. 

2 hours ago, Angel_Dust said:

America can defeat any country in a military conflict easily, if the resources we have for our absurdly expensive war machine went to good use instead of rifles that can be very unreliable in most weather.

 

Nonetheless, America would win in every possible scenario against Britain.

That is a highly arrogant assumption, considering the US lost a simulated war game with Iran (millennium challenge 2002) and learned nothing from it when it changed the rules so they could automatically win. Also, just because the US has a more technologically advanced army, it does not guarantee that it will win a war (look at the Vietnam War and The Soviet War In Afghanistan to see what I mean). The US would not defeat Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, Canada, India, Pakistan or Iran easily in a non-nuclear war(or at the very least, not without taking heavy casualties).

[Here No Longer 5,276]

5 hours ago, Nsxile said:

That is a highly arrogant assumption, considering the US lost a simulated war game with Iran (millennium challenge 2002) and learned nothing from it when it changed the rules so they could automatically win. Also, just because the US has a more technologically advanced army, it does not guarantee that it will win a war (look at the Vietnam War and The Soviet War In Afghanistan to see what I mean). The US would not defeat Russia, China, France, Britain, Germany, Canada, India, Pakistan or Iran easily in a non-nuclear war(or at the very least, not without taking heavy casualties).

A highly arrogant assumption, that I never made. I think I remember saying, if we used our resources properly, which we wouldn't and I already pointed that out. I also never said that Britain would be defeated easily. I said that we would if we used all the money at our disposal in an actually decently economic way. Of course there'd be heavy casualties on both sides of any given war scenario with another country, but the US would win in the end assuming that it's just the US against that country based sheerly on the resources the US has at their disposal.

[Stardust 641]

Food battles yos let's fight

 

 

If it's an actual war probs US I mean they have more resources and all. Unless UK can collect enough allies. 

[Splashee 28,566]

Britain has an older language while America is modern in everything they do. What is this topic about again?