|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 7, 2016 4:42:17 GMT
Australia is increasing millitary spending now. There is no way the US can stand up to Pakistan, South Africa, India, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Malaysia, and all 53 members of the commonwealth. All the US has on its side is largest army and largest spending. There is just no way the US can stand up to the manpower of the Commonwealth. Not to mention the determination and skill that Commonwealth nations proved they had in WW2.
Also I would think that Europe would be more likely to side with the Commonwealth than the US.
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 7, 2016 5:31:22 GMT
Australia is increasing millitary spending now. There is no way the US can stand up to Pakistan, South Africa, India, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, Malaysia, and all 53 members of the commonwealth. All the US has on its side is largest army and largest spending. There is just no way the US can stand up to the manpower of the Commonwealth. Not to mention the determination and skill that Commonwealth nations proved they had in WW2. Also I would think that Europe would be more likely to side with the Commonwealth than the US. if all the 53 Commonwealth countries mobilise all their forces and deploy them in Canada (or somewhere else in the US) its a gonna be a quick surrender from the opposition, you cannot stop these many men, with anything they'll call backup, massive recruitments in their countries, all these men come in, the machinery, the nukes, everything comes in,and also the defeat of the opposition. |
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 7, 2016 10:03:06 GMT
But here's the thing: Canada will surrender QUICK. And when I say Quick, I mean QUICK. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 200 miles of the American border. That means all their major cities are also 200 miles from the American border. It would not take long to take these cities and have them surrender.
Remember the navy? The issue with the commonwealth is that their navies wouldn't stand a chance to the Americans. And the issue is that they would need their men to be shipped to the USA if you wanted to naval invade. I mean we could honestly just keep our navy docked around the Indian, Pakistani and African coastlines and then your main weapon is gone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mountbatten on Apr 7, 2016 10:19:29 GMT
The only thing that I'm gonna say is that Britain couldn't beat Germany with France as their ally, how are they going to do it against France and all alone?
And I highly doubt that the US military would be defeated by a lesser developed country when the US has better ships and planes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Frederick the Great on Apr 7, 2016 10:28:33 GMT
That was a different time though. These days Germany isn't in the top 3 strongest nations like it was back in WW2 and in WW2 Britain had to strech its resources across its empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Singlemalt on Apr 7, 2016 11:52:58 GMT
Does not all depend on whether China will join 1 of the teams? If not usa will probably be stronger...
|
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 7, 2016 14:07:45 GMT
Yeah. I love how you're bringing up all of these points, Nelson. People seem to forget some of this crucial facts. I especially love how you brought up that we lost several "wars" due to insurgents. If they had fought the honorable way, then the U.S. probably would have won...
|
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 7, 2016 14:11:06 GMT
I would also like to point out that Germany and France are weak, but still powerful. Britain would cause severe damage, but enough to kill them off? With U.S. forces in the Atlantic being a problem? Please. Your over-estimating Britain and under-estimating the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moreau on Apr 7, 2016 18:40:58 GMT
No,obviously USA never had any intentions to kill civillans. It's rather steange why they napalmed,caroet bombed civillans in Vietnam,Afghanistan Syria etc etc. Placed mine fieds in civillan areas and generally abusing civillans
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 7, 2016 18:55:32 GMT
TK421, there is no honorable way to play the game of war. Like the saying says, All's fair in Love and War. Moreau, A.We napalmed the vietnamese jungles to clear away the leaves. Should we have? No. Did we do it meaning to harm civilians? No. Carpet Bombing was what most nations did in conflicts such as WW2 and no one ever seems to bring that up, A Good Rule to Follow: Don't blame one nation alone for doing something when other nations are also responsible for that same action.
|
|
|
|
Post by TK421 on Apr 7, 2016 19:01:18 GMT
Abusing citizens? I can think of a few instances when this would happen, but, overall, this hasn't happened all to often. Usually it's justified when it does. Hiding insurgents in civilian clothing tends to make any soldier feel uneasy near civilians:P
|
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon Bonaparte on Apr 7, 2016 19:09:00 GMT
Anyone wanna care to explain the bombing of Dresden?
|
|
|
|
Post by General William T. Sherman on Apr 7, 2016 20:13:04 GMT
Also, just some stuff here, the poll asks about Britain and the commonwealth nations. And, therefore, i am sorry to inform those who support the British side that no countries in Africa, nor India or Pakistan are a part of modern day British Commonwealth.
NVM, forget this portion.
But if Britain can use all its former colonies, why can't the USA and her respective allies use their former colonies as well? It seems that if something as unrealistic as this were to happen, then surely the former colonies of Spain, Portugal, France and Germany would be all too willing to join the fight as well? I mean if the British and their former empire are so strong, then they could surely beat the USA, all of Latin America minus some of the Caribbean as well as Guyana and Belize, most of N. and W. Africa, Tanzania, Namibia, Kamerun, the Philippines, Angola, Mozambique, Liberia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Syria, Lebanon, Eritrea, Somalia, the two Congos, Gabon and surely other areas!
|
|
|
|
Post by Singlemalt on Apr 7, 2016 20:16:23 GMT
I agree all of them hate probably the brits even mire
|
|
|
|
Post by Horatio Nelson on Apr 7, 2016 20:48:07 GMT
Anyone wanna care to explain the bombing of Dresden? Yeah, we bombed a city full of civilians to drain the moral of a psychotic regime. It was WW2. No country is innocent of this. |
|
