France surrenders obv. Britain can hold pretty strong by themselves which is one of the reasons why Germany decided to attack Russia (inb4 that's just a theory). But I think ickie Hitler was getting impatient so I'll go with A Dolph.
The UK has hundreds of Nukes. France has a few but not enough to wipe out the entire UK. Germany has no nukes whatsoever. So the principle of MAD does not apply to these 3 countries. Also, the UK could probably intercept what few nukes France has without too much trouble. I say UK for sure. Also, they have a queen who everyone loves and would gladly die for. France and Germany do not have a monarchy so there is less national unity.
Edit: Did a little research, seems france has more than I thought. Germany definitely loses though.
The UK has hundreds of Nukes. France has a few but not enough to wipe out the entire UK. Germany has no nukes whatsoever. So the principle of MAD does not apply to these 3 countries. Also, the UK could probably intercept what few nukes France has without too much trouble. I say UK for sure. Also, they have a queen who everyone loves and would gladly die for. France and Germany do not have a monarchy so there is less national unity.
drewtwo99
you did read the TC post right or are you just trolling?
The UK has hundreds of Nukes. France has a few but not enough to wipe out the entire UK. Germany has no nukes whatsoever. So the principle of MAD does not apply to these 3 countries. Also, the UK could probably intercept what few nukes France has without too much trouble. I say UK for sure. Also, they have a queen who everyone loves and would gladly die for. France and Germany do not have a monarchy so there is less national unity.
drewtwo99
Did you even read my post? No nukes! You know if UK nukes France, the radioactive cloud will sure as hell affect the UK too. It will be a hard one, because Germany has got the best tanks, France - best aircrafts and the UK - best navy fleet.
The UK has hundreds of Nukes. France has a few but not enough to wipe out the entire UK. Germany has no nukes whatsoever. So the principle of MAD does not apply to these 3 countries. Also, the UK could probably intercept what few nukes France has without too much trouble. I say UK for sure. Also, they have a queen who everyone loves and would gladly die for. France and Germany do not have a monarchy so there is less national unity.
sonofsmeagle
you did read the TC post right or are you just trolling? I read it and I CLEARLY described why his "no nukes, you nuke yourself" argument is flawed when considering these 3 countries. Did you read MY post where I clearly laid out why MAD does not apply to this hypothetical war, and why nukes wouldn't be an impossible supposition?
The UK has hundreds of Nukes. France has a few but not enough to wipe out the entire UK. Germany has no nukes whatsoever. So the principle of MAD does not apply to these 3 countries. Also, the UK could probably intercept what few nukes France has without too much trouble. I say UK for sure. Also, they have a queen who everyone loves and would gladly die for. France and Germany do not have a monarchy so there is less national unity.
Crimsader
Did you even read my post? No nukes! You know if UK nukes France, the radioactive cloud will sure as hell affect the UK too. It will be a hard one, because Germany has got the best tanks, France - best aircrafts and the UK - best navy fleet. Fallout may affect them SLIGHTLY but not much. It would be a completely viable option against Germany, but I agree not France (for MAD reasons)
The UK has hundreds of Nukes. France has a few but not enough to wipe out the entire UK. Germany has no nukes whatsoever. So the principle of MAD does not apply to these 3 countries. Also, the UK could probably intercept what few nukes France has without too much trouble. I say UK for sure. Also, they have a queen who everyone loves and would gladly die for. France and Germany do not have a monarchy so there is less national unity.
you did read the TC post right or are you just trolling? I read it and I CLEARLY described why his "no nukes, you nuke yourself" argument is flawed when considering these 3 countries. Did you read MY post where I clearly laid out why MAD does not apply to this hypothetical war, and why nukes wouldn't be an impossible supposition? Doesnt matter what your arguement was TC clearly stated that the base for the discussion would involve no nukes and thus no speaking of them
I still don't understand how being mad has anything to do with nukes...Crimsader
Well anyhow, my argument stands. Nukes would be a viable option for France/UK to use against Germany because there would be no threat of retaliation. Fallout on a surface strike is confined to a few miles, and the rest is spread throughout the atmosphere globally. Since France and the UK are fairly well matched in terms of Nuclear arsenal, then it comes down to devotion to state and sheer manpower since both countries are technologically advanced. I would say that because the UK has a monarchy and a commonwealth that is all represented by one Queen, they have a LOT of devotion and a LOT of manpower. France would fall.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"] you did read the TC post right or are you just trolling?sonofsmeagle
I read it and I CLEARLY described why his "no nukes, you nuke yourself" argument is flawed when considering these 3 countries. Did you read MY post where I clearly laid out why MAD does not apply to this hypothetical war, and why nukes wouldn't be an impossible supposition? Doesnt matter what your arguement was TC clearly stated that the base for the discussion would involve no nukes and thus no speaking of them Even CONSIDERING that, I STILL gave another NON-NUCLEAR reason for why the UK would win the war (devotion to a popular monarchy). I was just trying to bring up a valid point that Germany does not have a nuclear arsenal... maybe the TC had not thought of this. I don't know. Anyhow, no I wasn't being a troll, that's why I was trying to justify why I posted about nukes and gave another reason for UK victory.
Oh, the queen, like she does anything besides waving to the people from Buckingham. It's not about unity, because the civilians don't fight the war So you're saying the Germany is not technically advanced?
[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"] I read it and I CLEARLY described why his "no nukes, you nuke yourself" argument is flawed when considering these 3 countries. Did you read MY post where I clearly laid out why MAD does not apply to this hypothetical war, and why nukes wouldn't be an impossible supposition?drewtwo99
Doesnt matter what your arguement was TC clearly stated that the base for the discussion would involve no nukes and thus no speaking of them Even CONSIDERING that, I STILL gave another NON-NUCLEAR reason for why the UK would win the war (devotion to a popular monarchy). I was just trying to bring up a valid point that Germany does not have a nuclear arsenal... maybe the TC had not thought of this. I don't know. Anyhow, no I wasn't being a troll, that's why I was trying to justify why I posted about nukes and gave another reason for UK victory. Your arguement on the non-nuke part was sound and factulay based which is good, but you should have just left it at that and not included the nukes, Lets just leave it at that and hope that no1 else brings up nukes to dilute this discussion on what seems to be who would win in a conventional war
Oh, the queen, like she does anything besides waving to the people from Buckingham. It's not about unity, because the civilians don't fight the war So you're saying the Germany is not technically advanced?Crimsader
yeh the brits in a crisis have some1 to look up to, thats what they did in WW2 they looked to churchill but without a influential prime minister they would look to their great and world renown monarchy
Let's try not to use "X will back up X so they win".
If these countries go toe to toe, my money is on the Germans. As said by Jon Stewart; Germany is the Michael Jordan of war.
sonofsmeagle
Atm it lacks the military size, My moneys on Britain destroying the french and sweeping through to germany
Granted.
However, the German Economy is by far thelargest in Europe. Giving them lots of influence in the progress. I also doubt the UK will "sweep" through Germany, once the German war machine starts rolling there is no stopping them me thinks.
Let's try not to use "X will back up X so they win".
If these countries go toe to toe, my money is on the Germans. As said by Jon Stewart; Germany is the Michael Jordan of war.
Sagem28
Atm it lacks the military size, My moneys on Britain destroying the french and sweeping through to germany
Granted.
However, the German Economy is by far thelargest in Europe. Giving them lots of influence in the progress. I also doubt the UK will "sweep" through Germany, once the German war machine starts rolling there is no stopping them me thinks.
Well idk what the grounds are exactly about how the war starts but if it started right now the Germans would need a good 2-3 years to get a nice solid army recruited and trained, Either by then they will have been battered by france or they would have sandwitched france with britain, and i just see the Brits navy and airforce being way too much for the rest to handle
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"] Doesnt matter what your arguement was TC clearly stated that the base for the discussion would involve no nukes and thus no speaking of themsonofsmeagle
Even CONSIDERING that, I STILL gave another NON-NUCLEAR reason for why the UK would win the war (devotion to a popular monarchy). I was just trying to bring up a valid point that Germany does not have a nuclear arsenal... maybe the TC had not thought of this. I don't know. Anyhow, no I wasn't being a troll, that's why I was trying to justify why I posted about nukes and gave another reason for UK victory. Your arguement on the non-nuke part was sound and factulay based which is good, but you should have just left it at that and not included the nukes, Lets just leave it at that and hope that no1 else brings up nukes to dilute this discussion on what seems to be who would win in a conventional war It's a stupid constraint. You put two nuclear powers in a war with a non-nuclear power... well you see what's going to happen. If this were a hypothetical matchup between China, United States, and India... I could easily go along with it. But it's like saying we shouldn't consider tanks because the UK is an island and probably won't use Tanks much so the others shouldn't either. It's just silly.
[QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"] Even CONSIDERING that, I STILL gave another NON-NUCLEAR reason for why the UK would win the war (devotion to a popular monarchy). I was just trying to bring up a valid point that Germany does not have a nuclear arsenal... maybe the TC had not thought of this. I don't know. Anyhow, no I wasn't being a troll, that's why I was trying to justify why I posted about nukes and gave another reason for UK victory.drewtwo99
Your arguement on the non-nuke part was sound and factulay based which is good, but you should have just left it at that and not included the nukes, Lets just leave it at that and hope that no1 else brings up nukes to dilute this discussion on what seems to be who would win in a conventional war It's a stupid constraint. You put two nuclear powers in a war with a non-nuclear power... well you see what's going to happen. If this were a hypothetical matchup between China, United States, and India... I could easily go along with it. But it's like saying we shouldn't consider tanks because the UK is an island and probably won't use Tanks much so the others shouldn't either. It's just silly. Britian would use tanks quite alot if they were invaded or pushed into france, But by bringing nukes into this its simply the fact that every1 is just gonna end up nuking each other and germany
The UK has hundreds of Nukes. France has a few but not enough to wipe out the entire UK. Germany has no nukes whatsoever. So the principle of MAD does not apply to these 3 countries. Also, the UK could probably intercept what few nukes France has without too much trouble. I say UK for sure. Also, they have a queen who everyone loves and would gladly die for. France and Germany do not have a monarchy so there is less national unity.
drewtwo99
you did read the TC post right or are you just trolling? I read it and I CLEARLY described why his "no nukes, you nuke yourself" argument is flawed when considering these 3 countries. Did you read MY post where I clearly laid out why MAD does not apply to this hypothetical war, and why nukes wouldn't be an impossible supposition? While MAD may not directly apply, I don't think the other world powers would look too kindly on the UK if they let the nukes fly.
[QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"] Your arguement on the non-nuke part was sound and factulay based which is good, but you should have just left it at that and not included the nukes, Lets just leave it at that and hope that no1 else brings up nukes to dilute this discussion on what seems to be who would win in a conventional warsonofsmeagle
It's a stupid constraint. You put two nuclear powers in a war with a non-nuclear power... well you see what's going to happen. If this were a hypothetical matchup between China, United States, and India... I could easily go along with it. But it's like saying we shouldn't consider tanks because the UK is an island and probably won't use Tanks much so the others shouldn't either. It's just silly. Britian would use tanks quite alot if they were invaded or pushed into france, But by bringing nukes into this its simply the fact that every1 is just gonna end up nuking each other and germany I just can't ignore the fact that two countries with nukes could easily use them against the country that doesn't have them, and THEN do conventional war against the other country.
[QUOTE="ThePlothole"][QUOTE="drewtwo99"][QUOTE="sonofsmeagle"] you did read the TC post right or are you just trolling? I read it and I CLEARLY described why his "no nukes, you nuke yourself" argument is flawed when considering these 3 countries. Did you read MY post where I clearly laid out why MAD does not apply to this hypothetical war, and why nukes wouldn't be an impossible supposition? While MAD may not directly apply, I don't think the other world powers would look too kindly on the UK if they let the nukes fly. Agreed, many wouldn't. But I thought we were speaking hypothetically about a world where no other countries existed... hence why only listing these three. In a real-world scenario, the political implications of directly launching nukes against another country would make them very unlikely to be used. But if Germany was trying to do something insane and France and the UK nuked them, the world might just turn the other way.
Germany does have nukes. And even tho they're NATO's possession, they'll surely launch them if they see British ones coming.Crimsader
NATO has argued that the weapons' sharing is compliant with the NPT because "the U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe are in the sole possession and under constant and complete custody and control of the United States." The US controls NATOs nukes. They would be allies with Britain. 'Nuff said
By the same logic, Russia would feel threatened and would annihilate the whole west block... Seriously we're talking about a war without nuclear o chemical weapons, it's not interesting with them. And no allies because you never know who is going to turn what in times of war.
[QUOTE="Crimsader"]By the same logic, Russia would feel threatened and would annihilate the whole west block... Seriously we're talking about a war without nuclear o chemical weapons, it's not interesting with them. And no allies because you never know who is going to turn what in times of war. You just contradicted yourself. If we are imagining a world where there are NO allies, a world with JUST the UK, France and Germany... then what I said makes even more sense. Germany stands no chance against the other two because of nukes. Like it or not they WOULD use them, especially if there are no other countries in the world who are going to ally with Germany against them. But if you insist on your absurd constraint, I still say UK wins because of the commonwealth and their monarchy. The head of state for all the commonwealth countries is the Queen of England and if she said to go to war, she's have a huge empire behind her.
And what makes you think that France would ally with UU to nuke Germany? I see it as a rather nuclear warfare between the UK and France, they'll both be doomed, while the harmless Germany with no nukes will walk out as a victor.
And what makes you think that France would ally with UU to nuke Germany? I see it as a rather nuclear warfare between the UK and France, they'll both be doomed, while the harmless Germany with no nukes will walk out as a victor.Crimsader
They wouldn't ALLY against germany... they would both just send ICBMs right at the start of the war to Germany... Germany is out. Then they go to war against eachother. It would be clear as day where the ICBMs were headed, so no worries about them nuking eachother.
Nobody wins wars. You just lose less. And today is not about a nation versus nation. It is peoples ideas and ethics against other ideas and ethics. You can 'win' and occupy a country, but not their citizens.
Dunno, isn't Germany limited to what they can do in terms of weapons and personnel due to WW2? They abolished conscription this year and plan to build a professional army. I'd say the UK and Germany would have big clashes leading neither side to a victory.
For the initial stages of the war you'd have the France taking it from both sides (two front warfare), so they'd probably have a few issues despite having the most powerful existing military of these three nations. The Germans, if smart, would probably let the French and the British duke it out for the early stages of the war while they mobilize their stronger economy unto a war footing. Once the French/British are exhausted, just unleash the new and improved Bundeswehr on Eastern France and carve up the relatively undefended territory. From then on it's a matter of seizing the rest of the country and, if the British had gotten onto the continent again, kicking them out.
In the past Germany "won" over the UK and France long before the US had plans of even joining the war.
Nowadays, I don't doubt the country with the strongest and most well-funded/supported military would win.
These kinds of "theoretical wars" are really a waste of time, because sometimes winning a battle goes beyond which country is the "best" and boils down to the courage of the foot-soldiers.
Log in to comment