Would America still win a war with Britain? Would we be able to make Britain our bitch if we wanted to?
No, Britain would win
>>60997025
>Would we be able to make Britain our bitch if we wanted to?
they are
>>60997025
>Would we be able to make Britain our bitch?
They're our bitch now
>>60997025
would be a fucked up stalemate that would inevitably lead to errybody flinging their nukes 2bh
>>60997025
>Winning a war with a nuclear state
>he wants to fight england a 4th time
no thanks. suffering the beatles and who last time was enuf
Not sure. Probably. Invading Britain would be pretty difficult, near to impossible in fact. Ruling out Nukes, I would say that it would lead to a stalemate.
>>60998134
They could just blockade you and let you starve to death.
Is britain even capable of agriculturally supporting its own population?
>>60997883
you probably have few enough nukes that we could stop them all with ABM systems. The real problem will be trying to occupy yet another Islamic nation
Of course, why ?
>>60997025
America would win a war with anybody.
Although any war in which both countries have nukes is probably not going to end with any real winners.
Westerners fighting amongst themselves just gives the eastern powers the opportunity to sweep the leftovers.
The more interesting question would be how would the rest of Europe would react to US vs. UK.
>>60998792
>dat shitty grammar
don't merge two sentences together guiz
>>60997025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_ships_of_the_United_States_Navy
>430+ active naval vessels
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Royal_Navy_ships
>77 active naval vessels
>Britain
>Muh navy
toppest of keks britbongs thanks for not trying
>>60999393
You'd abandon all of pacific security to wail on the bongs? You're a bug guy, clapistan-senpai, you have responsibilities all over the world.
You'd only have about a third of the total available. Which of course is still a lot, but with bongs being able to sortie more effectively it isn't as clear as it was before~
>>60999393
>US naval budget $379.8 billion
>UK total military budget 56.2
Gee I wonder why
>>60999536
These stats are from October, 2015 (Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-ranked-2015-9):
>United Kingdom
Budget: $60.5 billion
Active frontline personnel: 146,980
Tanks: 407
Total aircraft: 936
Submarines: 10
>United States
Budget: $601 billion
Active frontline personnel: 1,400,000
Tanks: 8,848
Total aircraft: 13,892
Submarines: 72
>10x the budget
>100x the manpower
>22x the number of tanks
>15x the number of aircraft
>7x the number of submarines
Seriously. It's not a contest. We could allocate 1/4 of our military and still flatten them. You forget that the United States Department of Defense is the largest organization in the world, let alone largest military (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers).
>>60998134
We already have infiltrators. Agent Paltrow alone could...
I've said too much.
>>61000007
And yet time and time again the royal navy has beaten the US navy in war-games...
>>61000234
Provide sources and/or proofs for your otherwise-unfounded claims, please.
>>61000007
>7 off
>>61000234
That's because the word royal sounds intimidating and you are a bunch of islanders.
>>61000000
>>60998314
They might be able to blockade the Atlantic, but I doubt they could blockade te north sea, so they could simply trade with Europe and Russia
USA couldn't win against North Vietnam so I wouldn't be so sure...
>let's have a nuclear war just because
How about we don't do this
>>61000007
>100x the manpower
>American maths
>>60997025
>Would we be able to make Britain our bitch if we wanted to?
They already are.
UK military doesn't have much chances. Not only they're outnumbered, but the technology is more or less the same, inferior in some cases. Plus their defense systems is connected to the US Navy, without it they're sitting ducks.
>>61000781
Couldn't they just sink shipping convoys with their submarines germany style?
if you like to talk to tomatoes
>>61000863
>146,980 * 100 = 14,698,000
Ah. I may have added an extra zero by accident.
>146,980 * 10 = 1,469,800
Then we just round it.
My argument remains though. Literally 1/10 of our military would be comparable to the UK's.
>>61000007
>Submarines: 72
We should build a few more
>>61001070
I know, right? Best freakin' ship sinkers around, subs.
Invade it please and finish with everyone.
>>61000309
The US can't even win against a "random" middle eastern country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
>mfw britbongs are avoiding this thread
>>61000234
he doesn't understand the point of war-games
