If the US went to war with the UK, who would win?

[Cicero]

I think the US would win, UKs army doesn't even compare to the US's and the US has far more resources than the UK.

[StoppingTime]

"far more resources" is one of the most broad ways to describe such a hypothetical situation.

[DerBear]

This is a stupid debate.

Okay,

The UK is tiny, we have limited people and resources.

Seriously.

I'm just done........the logic....

[Human]

Tell that to the Vietnamese peasants

[Fishy]

Well, from an economic point of view, the American dollar is a much stronger currency than that of the Euro right now (think Greece). I doubt it would be difficult for the USA to finance their war even though they are already greatly indebted with other countries.

On a side note, don't they have like 99% of nuclear warheads or something crazy like that?

[Cicero]

Tell that to the Vietnamese peasants

You just burned the US.

With one exception, the US did not lose the war. We backed out of it. The US won every single battle, but we weren't willing to sacrifice so many troops like the enemy was. In reality. The people of Vietnam lost because they went under communist rule.

[Stronger]

You just burned the US.

With one exception, the US did not lose the war. We backed out of it. The US won every single battle, but we weren't willing to sacrifice so many troops like the enemy was. In reality. The people of Vietnam lost because they went under communist rule.

Actually, that is the only war we ever lost, besides maybe one or two other wars with the UK, but yeah, we did lose the war.

[Cicero]

Actually, that is the only war we ever lost, besides maybe one or two other wars with the UK, but yeah, we did lose the war.

We lost cause we pulled out, the support for the war never got the official approval and the war became very much unliked. The US won every battle, but we pulled out because the Vietnamese were willing to sacrifice more lives than the US.

[Stronger]

We lost cause we pulled out, the support for the war never got the official approval and the war became very much unliked. The US won every battle, but we pulled out because the Vietnamese were willing to sacrifice more lives than the US.

What do you mean by official approval? From the people or the government?

[Cicero]

What do you mean by official approval? From the people or the government?

Congressional approval wasn't given

[Korashk]

The actual answer to the question is nobody.

[TheBigUnit]

Usa would win if there was a war, but why would there be a war like that?

We lost cause we pulled out, the support for the war never got the official approval and the war became very much unliked. The US won every battle, but we pulled out because the Vietnamese were willing to sacrifice more lives than the US.

You have a point, first of all the approval rating of the general population tanked, ho chi minh flat out said their strategy of winning was to wear out the enemy, if the usa really wanted to, they couldve won the war,

The actual answer to the question is nobody.
Smart answer.......

[PinkFloyd]

I think America would because we have a lot more recources... I sincerely hope nothing like this happens though...

[BpOlson]

US would win without trying due to our military strength. A single Ohio-class submarine could level England. But it would never happen due to the fact that we are great allies.

[Taurus]

The US spends more money on our military than the next 7 countries combined. The US would "win" the war, but there would be so much destruction that it could hardly be called winning. Both sides would suffer immensely heavy losses.

[IAMWILL]

Its called the Revolutionary War.

'Murica: 1 --- UK: 0

[Human]

The actual answer to the question is nobody.
I like this answer

OP, the UK would have the support of Europe and your biggest enemies North Korea, China etc. would love to take advantage of the mayhem

[Iron Man]

Its called the Revolutionary War.


This.

Honestly, this really isn't a logical debate, seeing as the U.S. and the UK are strong allies, have been for the past x amount of years.

[Gwen]

Why only UK? We strive among allies, that's one of our bloody strengths. If US went to war with UK it'd get most of Europe on it's ass as well. If your going to do them alone, it's obvious they'd lose, but their strength isn't military or resources it's their allies are diplomacy. If your not going to add that, then this isn't even a bloody debate...

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

The US, obviously. We're much better at killng people. :rolleyes:

But, if we're talking US against the rest of Europe, it would be a tougher call. Cause, you know...Germany and stuff.

[workingatperfect]

The actual answer to the question is nobody.

I wish I could +rep you for this.


Well, it depends on who started it and if it was justified. I imagine if the US unnecessarily went to war with the UK, the UN would interfere, right? I actually don't know much about that stuff, but it seems like they would.

And the US lost the Vietnam war. You can win every game in the championship, but if you forfeit the Superbowl, you've still lost.

[Cicero]

I like this answer

OP, the UK would have the support of Europe and your biggest enemies North Korea, China etc. would love to take advantage of the mayhem

Europe is also allies with Europe, and china wouldn't want the US to be destroyed by another country. Especially when we owe so much to china, if anything, china would be on our side. Japan is also an ally that really like us, same with France and Kenya and Lithuania, Israel, Poland, Spain, and Germany.

The allies only won WWII cause the US got involved and because Britain provided one sided info to us (by intercepting Germany's messages), which shows how powerful we are even when fighting Europe.

[Southside]

We lost cause we pulled out, the support for the war never got the official approval and the war became very much unliked. The US won every battle, but we pulled out because the Vietnamese were willing to sacrifice more lives than the US.

So we loss then, we pulled out because we couldnt stand the amount of our troops getting killed. If we would have won, Vietnam would have been a "democracy'' as they call it.

[Cicero]

So we loss then, we pulled out because we couldnt stand the amount of our troops getting killed. If we would have won, Vietnam would have been a "democracy'' as they call it.

We loss by default.


Because the war in general was so unsupportive, we felt there was no need to battle both the citizens and Vietnam, just so its citizens can be freed from communism.

[Harry Smith]

Europe is also allies with Europe, and china wouldn't want the US to be destroyed by another country. Especially when we owe so much to china, if anything, china would be on our side. Japan is also an ally that really like us, same with France and Kenya and Lithuania, Israel, Poland, Spain, and Germany.

The allies only won WWII cause the US got involved and because Britain provided one sided info to us (by intercepting Germany's messages), which shows how powerful we are even when fighting Europe.

That's a bit unfair to the British and to the Soviets. Without Britain America wouldn't of had a launching base for either Sicily or D-Day. We defeated the Germans in the battle of Britain, we defeated the Afrika Corps at Al-Alamein. We weren't fighting the whole of Europe in WW2, we were fighting Germany who had pretty much leveled most of Europe and just used it for slave labour. Britain did a very good job in WW2, we fought hard and without us the Soviets would of had not only Denmark (1st and 6th Airbourne Occupied them in march '45) but the Soviets would of had mainland Europe.




We loss by default.


Because the war in general was so unsupportive, we felt there was no need to battle both the citizens and Vietnam, just so its citizens can be freed from communism.

You lost because the Viet Cong were a very effective fighting force who had been experienced from nearly 20 years worth of combat and who knew how to get supplies from the North, get food and where to build there tunnels. Half the time the US soldier's didn't even see there Enemy.

The US Objective was to stop a popular mass movement of People rising up against the pro US South Vietnam. You Sent your ground forces in under LBJ in '65 to stop the South becoming communist, yet look at it now- it's unified and communist. Yes the Country may be a shite hole but america got there asses kicked due to there out of date bombing methods and there failures to capture the hearts and minds.

Also the US did lose a Battle in the Vietnam War.

Battle for Nui Ho Khe (Hill 88) - On Sept 10, 1967, the 3rd battalion of the 26th Marines ventured forward to secure Hill 88. It was surprised to encounter an entire NVA regiment, which counterattacked causing a bloody fight in which the marines suffered 300 casualties and lost several tanks. The marines then withdrew to Hill 88.

I admit that even if all of NATO was involved we still would have lost in 'nam, it was an un-winnable war. In the words of Mohammed Ali- 'I ain't got no quarrel with them Vietcong, they never called me a nigger.

[Prodigy17]

I admit that even if all of NATO was involved we still would have lost in 'nam, it was an un-winnable war.

Not sure that's true anymore. Today British and American armies use very different tactics - they are trained to tackle guerrilla forces such as the Vietcong.

Problem in Vietnam is the USA were using conventional tactics to fight an unconventional war - like a boxer getting in a street fight and expecting his opponent to follow Marquis of Queensbury rules. There's only one way that will end :)

Today Vietnam would still be tough to win - but not unwinnable by any means.

[Southside]

That's a bit unfair to the British and to the Soviets. Without Britain America wouldn't of had a launching base for either Sicily or D-Day. We defeated the Germans in the battle of Britain, we defeated the Afrika Corps at Al-Alamein. We weren't fighting the whole of Europe in WW2, we were fighting Germany who had pretty much leveled most of Europe and just used it for slave labour. Britain did a very good job in WW2, we fought hard and without us the Soviets would of had not only Denmark (1st and 6th Airbourne Occupied them in march '45) but the Soviets would of had mainland Europe.






You lost because the Viet Cong were a very effective fighting force who had been experienced from nearly 20 years worth of combat and who knew how to get supplies from the North, get food and where to build there tunnels. Half the time the US soldier's didn't even see there Enemy.

The US Objective was to stop a popular mass movement of People rising up against the pro US South Vietnam. You Sent your ground forces in under LBJ in '65 to stop the South becoming communist, yet look at it now- it's unified and communist. Yes the Country may be a shite hole but america got there asses kicked due to there out of date bombing methods and there failures to capture the hearts and minds.

Also the US did lose a Battle in the Vietnam War.

Battle for Nui Ho Khe (Hill 88) - On Sept 10, 1967, the 3rd battalion of the 26th Marines ventured forward to secure Hill 88. It was surprised to encounter an entire NVA regiment, which counterattacked causing a bloody fight in which the marines suffered 300 casualties and lost several tanks. The marines then withdrew to Hill 88.

I admit that even if all of NATO was involved we still would have lost in 'nam, it was an un-winnable war. In the words of Mohammed Ali- 'I ain't got no quarrel with them Vietcong, they never called me a nigger.

Just like whats happening with the Taliban, people say we are losing in Afghanistan so that means the Taliban are winning? This is the basic Taliban tactic, come across the border from Pakistan, fire at Americas for a hour or two, run back to Pakistan. Is that winning?

[Emerald Dream]

The original post concerned a potential conflict between the US and the UK. It's gone off on way too many tangents. If this continues I will be locking it. Please stay on-topic.

[Southside]

Not sure that's true anymore. Today British and American armies use very different tactics - they are trained to tackle guerrilla forces such as the Vietcong.

Problem in Vietnam is the USA were using conventional tactics to fight an unconventional war - like a boxer getting in a street fight and expecting his opponent to follow Marquis of Queensbury rules. There's only one way that will end :)

Today Vietnam would still be tough to win - but not unwinnable by any means.

So what do you mean we used conventional tactics? Your suggesting American troops should have gone in with machetes,bolt rifles, and sandals?

The original post concerned a potential conflict between the US and the UK. It's gone off on way too many tangents. If this continues I will be locking it. Please stay on-topic.

We are talking about the Vietnam conflict..Thats war related..


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Emerald Dream]

We are talking about the Vietnam conflict..Thats war related..

Not in this thread it's not. Stick to the original discussion.

[Southside]

Not in this thread it's not. Stick to the original discussion.

War is the topic at hand last time I checked.

[Emerald Dream]

War with the US and the UK was the topic of this thread. If you wish to discuss Vietnam then create another one.

Due to too much off-topic, I am now locking it. :locked: