Who would win in a conventional Armed Conflict? U.S.A. Vs. England?? (No Nukes)

[QUOTE="67gt500"] the Vietnamese wiped America's ass not too long ago... .Euroshinobi

What ?

US: 58,159 dead

Vietnamese dead: 1,176,000

thats not wiping americas ass lol

[QUOTE="Euroshinobi"]

[QUOTE="67gt500"] the Vietnamese wiped America's ass not too long ago... .67gt500

What ?

US: 58,159 dead

Vietnamese dead: 1,176,000

thats not wiping americas ass lol

If you read the history books, youll realize that our lack of 'winning' was the fault of our government for not letting us go in and bomb the North Vietnamese to bits. Our soldiers were more than capable.

[QUOTE="67gt500"][QUOTE="Euroshinobi"]

What ?

US: 58,159 dead

Vietnamese dead: 1,176,000

thats not wiping americas ass lol

If you read the history books, youll realize that our lack of 'winning' was the fault of our government for not letting us go in and bomb the North Vietnamese to bits. Our soldiers were more than capable.

[QUOTE="67gt500"] the Vietnamese wiped America's ass not too long ago... .Euroshinobi

What ?

US: 58,159 dead

Vietnamese dead: 1,176,000

thats not wiping americas ass lol

That's losing a war.

Russia lost over 20 million of its citizens in repelling Nazi germany; but it was still victorious. War is won and lost depending on the objectives you set out to accomplish, not the cost of accomplishing them.

[QUOTE="Euroshinobi"]

the Vietnamese wiped America's ass not too long ago... .67gt500

What ?

US: 58,159 dead

Vietnamese dead: 1,176,000

thats not wiping americas ass lol

That's losing a war.

Russia lost over 20 million of its citizens in repelling Nazi germany; but it was still victorious. War is won and lost depending on the objectives you set out to accomplish, not the cost of accomplishing them.

[QUOTE="Euroshinobi"]

[QUOTE="67gt500"] the Vietnamese wiped America's ass not too long ago... .67gt500

What ?

US: 58,159 dead

Vietnamese dead: 1,176,000

thats not wiping americas ass lol

Considering how well dug in the North Vietnamese were, the only way to have guaranteed victory would have been to make the North completely uninhabitable (i.e. saturating the country with chemical/biological agents and lethal levels of radioactive material) which would have probably led to escalation of the war with either China or the Soviets. That and the politicization of the war was a major problem for the United States.

Personally I don't think America should have entered the war after France left. In truth, South Vietnam was a cesspool of corruption, and I don't think that it was worth defending.

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

Rynair9

Yes the US have the numbers and the tech, but they are not better trained than the UK

Hmm I wonder why everyone ignored my post, maybe because I proved a very good point? Never underestimate our size! :evil:

[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="CBR600-RR"]

Hmm I wonder why everyone ignored my post, maybe because I proved a very good point? Never underestimate our size! :evil:

metalpower08

[QUOTE="metalpower08"][QUOTE="markop2003"] You're right that British troops are better trained however we don't fund them enough to supply them, they keep running out of medical supplies, sometimes even ammo runs short. Also the US has a many more special forces personel than the UKfartybarty

No, just..no. It doesn't work like that

[QUOTE="metalpower08"][QUOTE="markop2003"] You're right that British troops are better trained however we don't fund them enough to supply them, they keep running out of medical supplies, sometimes even ammo runs short. Also the US has a many more special forces personel than the UKfartybarty

You might think people would learn from their mistakes:

American Revolution - U.S.A. 1, England 0

War of 1812 - U.S.A. 2, England 0

:lol:

The USA spends more on National Defense than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Sorry, Brits. You'd put up a good fight, but China is the only country that could challenge the USA right now.

:lol:

The USA spends more on National Defense than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Sorry, Brits. You'd put up a good fight, but China is the only country that could challenge the USA right now.

LosDaddie

The US has 12 Aircraft carriers.. I think the British have maybe one..sSubZerOo

the Royal Navy has 3 aircraft carriers 4 if you include there helicopter carrier its the only fleet in the world other than the USN to have more than 1 aircraft carrier .

Браћа Срби би увек помогли браћи Русима у било ком рату!

I do not know for you, but Serbia will always help Ortodox brothers from Russia and Greece. Spanish people are smart I guess, and we would all together join and first crush england and then America.

LONG LIVE SERBIA AND RUSSIA!

НЕК ВЕЧНО ЖИВЕ СРБИЈА И РУССИЈА!

Britain would win. Nothing can outmatch our integrity!super_mario_128

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

Rynair9

[QUOTE="Rynair9"]

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

LeePearce

[QUOTE="super_mario_128"]Britain would win. Nothing can outmatch our integrity!Jandurin

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

:lol:

The USA spends more on National Defense than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Sorry, Brits. You'd put up a good fight, but China is the only country that could challenge the USA right now.

Jandurin

Not if our subs take our their subs first :o

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

:lol:

The USA spends more on National Defense than the rest of the world COMBINED.

Sorry, Brits. You'd put up a good fight, but China is the only country that could challenge the USA right now.

LosDaddie

Not if our subs take our their subs first :o

USA of course. They have a much higher population, higher military budget and as a result: Much more likely to win.

If you were to pit 100 British soldiers against 100 American soldiers however, I'd put my money on the Brits winning. We have the best TRAINED army in the world: Fact

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="super_mario_128"]Britain would win. Nothing can outmatch our integrity!super_mario_128

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] No dude, but AFTER the war, they have their nucular submaureens that would blow us up.Jandurin

Not if our subs take our their subs first :o

And don't forget how British seamen ( :D ) are better trained their USA counterparts.

It's a fact......but don't ask for proof

[QUOTE="LeePearce"][QUOTE="Rynair9"]

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

Jandurin

But we're still better trained ;)LeePearce

[QUOTE="LeePearce"]But we're still better trained ;)Jandurin

:x

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="LeePearce"]But we're still better trained ;)LeePearce

:x

britain is a freakin island. swiftkillz0

America! **** Yeah!

Coming to save the mother****ing day yeah!

America!-- **** Yeah!

Freedom is the only thing yeah!

It's the dream we all share; it's the hope for tomorroooooow~

USA would win without even firing a shot onto British soil.

Blockade...

...and air dominance.

Nothing could get in or out, and I am fairly sure England does not have the domestic resources to wage a long war.

There would be some naval skirmishes as England tried to bust the blockade and of course air battles, but thats about it.

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

If both nations were allowed to use anything in their arsenal besides WMDs, Biological and chemical weapons,andallied nations.

Who would win?

I think American because they have alot better funding, training, andmore advanced tech; then those brits.

America would Beat England hand's down. If they however attacked an Invaded the entire Uk (because the topic poster forgot , Scotland ,Wales and Northern Ireland) I would seriously like to see them impose a succesfulloccupation on Scotland or Northern Ireland. I mean Northern Ireland is often refered to as the land of 1.7 million soldiers and have you ever seen Braveheart! I also think alot of countries would sease the oppertunity to attack America.

I really dont see the point in the colossul money spent on weapons by the USA. What is the point?

this is a retarded thread and should be locked

[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="MadExponent"] The US would win and it would be ugly. The US currently has enough conventional weapons to basically turn the rest of the planet into a giant crater.MadExponent

[QUOTE="MadExponent"][QUOTE="jointed"] Figuratively speaking of course.jointed

I'd like to point to the pile of top sevret weapons stacked up in bunkers. *point*

We don't know what secret tech either country has, satellites were invented years ago for the army. The army basically invents all new stuff, then 20 years later releases it to the public when they deem it obsolete and they don't care if the enemy gets their hands on it because they've got better stuff. Either side could win, but I place my bets with the UK. Also an assault on the US would be easier than the UK, as america has it's population spread out over a big area and the army would have to spread thin for defences. Whereas the UK is small and easier to defend. Like guarding a city with 100 people or guarding a small room with 20.