1) Is your country able to invade The United Kingdom?
2)Could your country takeover The United Kingdom?
>>55918489
I'm able to invade ur mum
>>55918582
His mum is Britain so that's technically a yes.
>>55918582
>Argentina
>Invading anyone
>>55919318
Think of it like this, we've got as many succesful invasions as the US had after WWII
>>55918489
Yes
Yes
actually we already did it
>>55919389
>>55919561
>>55919600
The United Kingdom has never been conquered
>>55919655
that's edited, here the original one, chicano
>>55918489
Easily
>>55919655
Okay, now reply again, but with a classic "Argentina es white" picture, that'll surely prove your point!
>>55919656
I'm sure.
>>55918489
Paki here. We already did m8.
>>55918582
M A C R I
A
C
R
I
>>55919754
That's horrific.
What the fuck were United thinking paying £60M for Di Maria? Fucking useless.
>>55919754
>£60
>for Shit Maria
>>55919845
he will make Argentina great again <3
This
>>55918489
Unless your from the US and you answer "Yes," you are wrong.
Maybe Russia and China.
>>55920171
Nah, not even the US would be able to in reality. In theory they could, but they wouldn't be able to handle the casualties of a sea/air invasion of the UK
>>55920171
And regarding Russia and China, not a chance. They have big armies but can't project the necessary force. The US is the only country with a chance in hell
>>55920437
Yeah Russia and China don't have a strong Navy. The means to invade and conqueror modern day UK would have to involve a sea campaign. Aerial combat will not win anyone a war between them and The UK.
In this sense. Controlling Islands in the Channel such as Guernsey and Jersey would be essential as it would allow for easy travel for ground troops and air force bombing campaigns
>>55920636
I think aircraft carriers make the Channel Islands irrelevant. So if we think about the USN's carriers. There are approximately 10. The USN follows the 3-for-1 deployed rule, which means to be able to deploy a single aircraft carrier they require 3
One active, one in long-term maintenance (typically 18 months), and another at port ready to relieve the active carrier (which must be done after x months otherwise you get a capability gap.
So on a good day, the USN can field 4 carriers at once. Maybe 5 if they really push. However, US foreign policy requires them to keep a carrier in strategic locations like the Gulf and the Asia-Pacific. If they withdraw these carriers to attack Britain, their enemies in those areas can strike with relative impunity.
So assuming the USA abandons a carrier presence everywhere in the world but the Gulf and East Asia (the most important places in today's geopolitics), the UK would *probably* face an American attack fleet with the strength of two carrier strike groups. Assume they're totally full to capacity with fighters, that's ~200 fighters, a bit less than the RAF's strength which is planned to be 160 Eurofighter Typhoon + 138 F-35B Lightning II. Plus drones. But the USN's F-35Cs are better than the B variant.
The USN's escort fleet could easily be fairly larger than the full strength Royal Navy in this war, however the USN is attacking which is obviously a big disadvantage in this scenario. A big factor would be relative morale, which for the defenders is naturally stronger (not just for Britain, for anyone defending the homeland).
We also know that the British government has always been prepared to do crazy shit to defend the Home Islands, for example in WW2 Churchill planned to unload fucktonnes of chemical weapons on British soil if the enemy managed to gain a beachead. There will also be a *lot* of mines and nasty shit prepared.
>>55921336
To clarify I mean sea mines, because obviously this war will be decided in the sea
Another thing to mention is cyber warfare. The US and UK governments are both pouring £billions into cyber. The British government was the first western government to openly say it is developing *offensive* cyber capability
Easy
>>55919389
Hello my white friend
>>55921852
>the United Kingdom
Billy invaded England.
Also if Parliament invites the enemy in, and the Army also defects to the enemy, then even fucking Belgium could conquer the UK.
Yes. We were so close and a storm fucked it up back in the days of the empire, fuck this shit man, we'd still be conquistados and shit if it had gone well
Literally only the yanks could, and even then it would cost them a ridiculous amount in blood and money.
If you think anyone else could you're deluded desu.
>>55922390
meanwhile sandniggers are singlehandedly doing it
thanks sjws
>>55918489
yes, through inmigration and multiplication, anyone can invade the uk
>>55923346
Technically, if you're from outside the EU, that isn't true
Well we beat them in the 20s when they were a huge empire and we only had 3 rifles and some sticks so now that they the United Cuckdom I'm sure we could stemroll if we were bothered. Which we're not.
Jawoll
>>55921715
t. armchair general brit who shills for the EU
>>55922294
>muh parliament invitation
we burned london good
>>55918489
ye no bother
France can invade england.
>>55918489
Been there, done that. Hell we even cucked you with replacing your king with one of ours in the 18th century.
>>55918489
Any country that tried would get nuked though, sure the USA could but when would it be worth nuclear war?
>>55926933
And he did a mighty fine job of it
One only wonders how things would have ended up had he failed.
