Great Britain vs the world

>>29306439
depends entirely on circumstance of the war.

If the obj was to destroy the uk, they could last 36 hours.

If the obj was to capture it, they could last a LOT longer (max 1-2 years, not counting resistance cells).

Either way they would lose.

>the world
They wouldn't.

They'd shit themselves after seeing 1 U.S CSG

>>29306439
That's Great Britain and Ireland in your pic mate.

Britain would literally have to defend both with only the resources for one.

They probably won't hold out.

>>29306439
>How long do you think Britain could hold out?
indefinitely, any attack can be held off with the threat of nuclear retaliation, any invasion scenario goes nuclear quickly.

>When would they use their nukes?
as soon as it looked like conventional means would fail

>When would a foreign flag be flown over Buckingham Palace?
when the hot zone cools enough that somebody can get to the site.

>They'd shit themselves after seeing 1 U.S CSG
it would take the USN literal years to replace its losses if the situation didnt go nuclear, Astutes arent anything to fuck with, spearfish will fuck a carrier pretty good and sink anything smaller and the subs themselves are quiet as anything at sea. situation goes nuclear and the USN has to rebuild the yards to rebuild the fleet.

>>29306455
I think 36 hours is generous.

>>29306874
>indefinitely, any attack can be held off with the threat of nuclear retaliation, any invasion scenario goes nuclear quickly.

US has +2000 space satellites monitoring and watching every small detail. They probably know when, where, and how much of a shit Cameron takes every day. This is apart from monitoring all British communications 24/7 thanks to 5 eyes where we get to spy on you, but you don't get to do the same with us.

Nuclear Submarines of all countries are tracked 24/7 and will be neutralized immediately, effectively disabling any threat of nuclear retaliation.

Afterwards a single carrier group would be sufficient to take out the entire country and hold it until President Trump arrives and personally executes the entire Royal Family for Treason against their Masters..

>>29306439
About three days. Just enough time for Russia and the US to get their amphibious assets within sneezing distances of the coast.

>>29306439
The US would defeat them by themselves, the US military is so huge and has such an enormous budget, it would simply overwhelm Britain.

If Russia could reach them with a fair amount of troops, they could do the exact same thing.

Britain isn't much of a power anymore, mainly thanks to how irrelevant they've became in the mid-late 20th century and 21st century, and of course recent military budget cuts.

>>29306439
>take on the world

They could barely take on Nazi Germany even with supplies from US/Canada.

>>29306439
Great Britain would immediately perish if it fought the world.

File: 'murica.png (29KB, 319x846px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 319x846px

>>29307364

>>29306439
bongcuckistan is being overrun by sandpiggers right now. all they would need to do is decide they want the fucking place and the silly little tea sipping sissys would gladly walk into the sea.

>>29306439
>that shit colored spot where london is
heh

>>29306439
London Monitor.

That is all.

>>29306439
In a total war scenario the UK would be an irradiated ash heap in its entirety within the first half hour (or less, depending on how close US nuke subs are and total flight time). The UK has ZERO anti-ballistic missile defense, and literally all of their neighbors have nukes. Moreover, all their second-strike capability is known globally, with the majority of their silos being pinpointed and labelled on Google Earth.

The US, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, and possibly the Czech republic could eventually conquer them single-handedly. Hell even if just the rest of NATO turned on them there'd be US troops in Buckingham within 18 hours, and if it were US vs. UK there'd be troops in Buckingham within 72 hours.
>entire British military, including reserve forces, is only ~230,000 people (156,000 active, 75,000 reserve). That's roughly the size of *just* the USMC, which is the smallest of the US' military branches.

File: hahaha.gif (174KB, 299x240px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 299x240px

>>29306874
>putting this much faith in the British

All the US would have to do is get the CIA to hire a few hundred American gun owners to go to the UK and turn it inside out using civil unrest. War wouldn't even be necessary, the British police are laughably unarmed and by the time their tactical response teams show up it would be far, far too late.

>mfw /k/ gets hired and everything goes crazy
>BBC reports of more dragon dildos at scenes of multiple shootings, bombings
>police officers captured, stripped, fake animal penises glued to their heads and left to wander the street with their penis horns
>UK has to go full martial law
>situation eventually collapses, government unable to deal with civil unrest
>knife bins detonated by rebels
>police stations vandalized
>military bases raided and looted, the reservists guarding them never showed up
>everything goes to shit
Meanwhile in the US
>"WE NEED GUN CONTROL IT WORKS IN OTHER COUNTRIES, TAKE A LOOK AT..."
>"UK? You said UK last year, does that still apply??
>liberals suddenly have to scramble to find a new excuse
>next day CIA handlers can't contact the /k/ommandos
>thousands of flights booked from UK to Australia

>>29308525
Liberation of uk in swing.
The left hand might not shoot the gun but it steadies its aim and slams the ammo in

>>29307364
Had a real good chuckle at this

>>29308525
Except American gun owners don't trust the alphabet boys.

File: mfw.jpg (30KB, 640x452px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x452px

>>29308603
>thinking trust is needed for a job

File: 1413317442660.gif (3MB, 565x318px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 565x318px

I think anon wasn't implying an ACTUAL scenario where Britain would be literally at war with EVERYONE in the world, more as in that it's Britain versus X i.e what would a scenario between Britain VS France would be or Britain VS Germany or Britain VS Italy etc etc.

>>29307492
>This is apart from monitoring all British communications 24/7 thanks to 5 eyes where we get to spy on you, but you don't get to do the same with us.

you honestly think GCHQ isnt thoroughly plugged in to american communications? they might not get caught but thats not to say we dont watch allies as well as enemies

as for the subs british boomers are as stealthy as the US ones

>Afterwards a single carrier group would be sufficient to take out the entire country

doesnt have enough aircraft or good enough aircraft to try toying with the RAF. typhoons would eat super hornets alive.

sure F22s or F35s might make a difference but none would be in range

now if you assembled the atlantic and mediterranean/gulf fleet groups you would probably have a big enough hammer although subs would still sink many.


not saying the UK wouldnt go under eventually but it is going to be a costly enough enterprise that no sane power would consider it

>>29309207
the only single power that could attempt to conquer britain would be the US, russia, china and france could nuke us, but russia and china lack the expeditionary capacity and france lacks the force advantage

2 weeks.

The US would generously allow the Germans to fly flags over Buckingham and Parliament for the ultimate keks.

>>29306439

>When would a foreign flag be flown over Buckingham Palace?

The end of the next election.

>US invades the UK
>all the mudslimes get triggered hard because its just like back home
>flashbacks of Murica invading their mid east shithole cause them to either take up arms against Murica or flee the country
>Murica wipes out the hostile mudslimes easily since in England they don't have a brown population to hide in like they did in Iraq/Syria/*istan
>UK is great again

>>29307492
>Nuclear Submarines of all countries are tracked 24/7
I too read thriller novels, it doesn't mean I base my factless prattle off it.

>>29306874
Even if britain had land based icbm's, which it hasn't, the country imports 40% of it's food. So even with the threat of nuclear retaliation it falls within a week. Just look at your average disaster zone and what happens with the behavior of the local populace once the endless supply of easily obtainable food ceases to function.

>>29309741
it imports 40% of its food atm, sure, but thats with a agricultural sector in depression because of a overseas competition and a desire for more exotic food which doesnt grow well in the UK climate, it is not the same thing as saying that the UK under wartime conditions couldnt fill its own food needs albeit with a blander and less meaty diet.

assuming that the invasion scenario is not a vast hidden plot that only becomes apparent as the forces actually move to jump off points then maybe, given any real warning i.e. rise in tensions and the other governments preparing their own populations and public opinion for war the UK would have plenty of time to go to a war footing

(captcha: select all the food)

>>29309787
Fair point, it's still reliant on GB having an effective nuclear deterrent though.

The constant global surveillance of all nuclear submarines are a fantasy to be sure. Even with the cold war at it's warmest the USN only had tabs on soviet SSN's some 50% of the time so it is atleast concievable that a deterrent could be maintained for some time. Even with the loss of all naval platforms there are still more Tridents in reserve on the main island that could given a wartime setting be launched against aggressors. Given the established range of the Trident II that could very well be effective. Still, deterrent are only really effective if you are prepared to fulfill the threat and any launch against another nuclear power (bar possibly some minor one) would result in any habitable area of the british isles being turned to glass in short order.

>>29309927
Addendum:
Granted, any such scenario would naturally result in further retaliation and WWIII follows mere minutes to hours later. But it is an interesting thought process atleast.

>>29306874
>indefinitely, any attack can be held off with the threat of nuclear retaliation, any invasion scenario goes nuclear quickly.
>as soon as it looked like conventional means would fail
or more likely Americans neuter your SLBMs with transmitted kill codes since they, you know actually built the damn things.

>>29308522
>literally all of their neighbors have nukes.

France does, not anyone else.

>the majority of their silos being pinpointed and labelled on Google Earth.

The UK has no missile silos...

>the Czech republic could eventually conquer them single-handedly.

Wat??

>>29309964

Americans thinkg they have "kill codes" for British nukes, ahaha too much Tom Clancy for you.

>>29306439
But can the UK take on Madara Uchiha?

And I'm not talking about Edo Tensei Uchiha Madara. No, I'm not talking about Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara. Hell, I'm not talking about Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara either. I'm talking about Kono Yo no Kyūseishu Futarime no Rikudō Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan (which is capable of Enton Amaterasu, Izanagi, Izanami and the Tsyukuyomi Genjutsu), his two original Rinnegan (which grant him Chikushōdō, Shuradō, Tendō, Ningendō, Jigokudō, Gakidō, Gedō, Banshō Ten'in, Chibaku Tensei, Shinra Tensei, Tengai Shinsei and Banbutsu Sōzō) capable of using Katon, Fūton, Raiton, Doton, Suiton, Mokuton, Ranton, Inton, Yōton and even Onmyōton Jutsu, equipped with his Gunbai(capable of using Uchihagaeshi) and a Shakujō because he is a master in kenjutsu and taijutsu, a perfect Susano'o (that can use Yasaka no Magatama ), control of both the Juubi and the Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju's DNA and face implanted on his chest, his four Rinbo Hengoku Clones guarding him and nine Gudōdama floating behind him AFTER he absorbed Senjutsu from the First Hokage, entered Rikudō Senjutsu Mode, cast Mugen Tsukuyomi on everybody and used Shin: Jukai Kōtan so he can use their Chakra while they are under Genjutsu. I'm Talking about sagemode sage of the six paths Juubi Jinchuuriki Gedou Rinne Tensei Uchiha Madara with the Eternal Mangekyou Sharingan, Rinnegan, Mystic Eyes of Death Perception, and Geass doujutsus, equipped with Shining Trapezohedron while casting Super Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann as his Susanoo, controlling the Gold Experience Requiem stand, able to tap into the speedforce, wearing the Kamen Rider Black RX suit and Gedou Mazou, with Hashirama Senju's DNA implanted in him so he has mokuton kekkei genkai and can perform yin yang release ninjutsu while being an expert in kenjutsu and taijutsu.

File: 1458255919691.jpg (140KB, 1075x1025px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1075x1025px

The US Navy alone could take down the UK

>Bring every carrier group
>Blockade
>Destroy/capture any ships coming or going that are attempting to get outside resources.
>Airspace is controlled as well, so forget that
>They starve out in 6-12 months
>Mass rioting tears them apart from the inside

Done

>>29309964
yes and no, sure they built the missiles, but the warheads and missile bus arent US built and the US built parts were thoroughly checked for that kind of bullshit, hell there arent even any british installed lockouts to prevent sub commanders firing on a whim.

this fantasy that britains nuclear detterent wont work without US permission is simply a fantasy, the UK got its sweetheart deal on the missiles because it suited US interests and because the alternative was the british building their own weapons with no US company making a profit, but a key part of the deal is that control rests solely with the british, and the part of the american MIC responsible for production and transfer of those missiles is extensively spied upon by and monitored by the british intelligence services

>>29309927
well yeah but given a choice between foreign invasion and nuclear annihilation the UK is quite likely to gamble on the other guy blinking first. after all if nobody can win its better that nobody loses either.

>>29310020
firstly the UK can support its food needs internally, the agricultural sector has plenty of slack, and most of the imports are non essential, sure the resultant rationing would be disliked but as inflicted by a external force likely to lead to stronger solidarity among the british not morale collapse and rioting,

also those carrier groups are gonna start losing ships pretty quickly and keep losing them at a steady rate, seriously Astutes are at least as quite as virginas and fully capable of taking out USN vessels,

>>29310025
>but the warheads and missile bus arent US built and the US built parts were thoroughly checked for that kind of bullshit
Those things aren't going up not without a functioning rocket though... And we all know how just even one tiny screw not flushed in or a corroded seal can fuck it all up. Whoops, sorry britbongs seems Cleetus made a mistake back at the assembly in Sunnyvale...
>>29310025
>the UK got its sweetheart deal on the missiles because it suited US interests
Don't you think it would suit the US interest more if they get a say on when the world enters WW3?

>>29308525
Nothing is more powerful then an American with a gun!
A stable nation state that has stood for hundreds of years will crumble because a few guns.
Fuck off.

>Not even British

>>29310098
so the US has sabotaged missiles that in just about any scenario but the betrayal of its oldest and most reliable ally it wants to work perfectly.

and yes it suits US interests for britain to be nuclear armed, beholden to a degree to the US, after all britain did develop nuclear weapons independently from the US (shouldnt have had to and Truman was a massive cunt but it had to and did) so if britain was going to be nuclear armed anyway the americans brought some goodwill and a few more missiles to beat the russians with that werent covered by any SALT treaty but would in almost any conceivable scenario be deployed in ways that served US interests.

as for the US getting a say in WW3 in any scenario in which they are used barring the US attempting to invade britain it almost certainly is WW3 anyway.

tl:dr
britains nuclear deterent was always going to be independent, it suits US interest in any likely scenario for it to be as effective as possible.

>>29306439
Considering there's a bunch of US military there already not very long. The bongistani civilians would be worthless as resistance too, no weapons, and trained into submission already.

I guarantee the Irish would storm Northern Ireland the moment this kicked off.

The French and krauts would pour in like a reverse D-day.

Would be over before most of the world's nations could even send their forces. The UK is but a shell of it's former self and that shell is as fragile as an egg. The only major threat is it's small nuclear arsenal which probably has US troops stationed with it and their navy, which while not being the biggest baddest kid in the tub anymore, is still respectable.

>>29306439
>implying the Trident orders are anything less than nuclear strikes against Britain's enemies
>and then everybody else because fuck it

>>29306874
>mfw all astutes sunk in a matter of hours thanks to SOSUS

>>29310157
>so the US has sabotaged missiles that in just about any scenario but the betrayal of its oldest and most reliable ally it wants to work perfectly.
It doesn't need the UK's missiles to work perfectly, they themselves have shittons of nukes against any conceivable opponent or combinations thereof on the planet.
Bong nukes would most likely just shift rubbles in Russian or Chinese cities anyways...

>>29310168
>The bongistani civilians would be worthless as resistance too, no weapons, and trained into submission already.
nope, firstly the army is still present and can reliable take out all US forces in britain, not without loss but not enough loss to significantly impair performance defending against followup strikes.

as for the civilians, ignoring the police armories which are relatively insignificant, the countryside is full of guns and most of those with a rifle are exactly the kind who would go werewolf, and the civilian population isnt exactly submissive, patrols would be stoned and knifed on day one, the guns looted, and resistance would only grow.

we are the british, we may die, we do not submit.

>>29310198
not all of those scenarios involve full scale launches

>>29310168
>I guarantee the Irish would storm Northern Ireland the moment this kicked off.
with what, the local forces in NI could if let off the leash hammer both the local insurgents and the entire irish army
>The French and krauts would pour in like a reverse D-day.
french can barely shift a brigade and the germans barely have a brigade fit to shift

Say the muslims took over Buckingham Palace, how long would it take to clear out the entire Palace? I'm assuming the fighting will takes weeks just like in Stalingrad fighting for rooms day by day.

>>29310168
>The only major threat is it's small nuclear arsenal which probably has US troops stationed with it
You do realise the UK's nuclear deterrent is always-at-sea sub based? And you're really suggesting they keep enough US troops onboard that they could take over the sub? You're pretty stupid already.

>The French and krauts would pour in like a reverse D-day.
What? Why? How? The frogs needed the UK's help for their Mali party, sure it's closer to home by far but they still lack the logistics to do much outside their borders without help, and the channel is as good a barrier as it ever was. Not to mention I see a lack of any great motivation for them to do anything.
The krauts could do even less given their lack of navy, not that they would have any more reason to do so than frogs.
For both countries bongistan is an annoyance in the EU, neither will go to war for them against any real threat, and neither have much capacity to do so without the help of the US.

>>29310253
Depends on the hostages. If they get anyone of note then the negotiation (ie planning) phase will go on for quite a few days unless they do something to force action (ie start executing people). Once shit kicks off I'd be very surprised if it lasted long at all, whilst it's a reasonably large complex of buildings it's not THAT huge so barring any effective fortifications having been improvised probably you're looking at a few minutes for primary objectives and a couple of hours to clear out every last nook and cranny.

>>29309964
>transmitted kill codes
This helped me start my day off with a laugh. Thanks, anon.

File: 1414369446276.jpg (355KB, 1162x475px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1162x475px

semi related

>>29310208
>we do not submit
Say that while you look at the CCTV camera on the street corner that those "refugees" are standing under and remember that spot you could have had a safe full of nice guns.
You submit, you just don't seem to realize it.

Stabbing a bunch of guys traveling in groups wearing plate carriers with automatic weapons won't kill them, it'll kill you.

Throwing rocks is pretty worthless unless you've got skills with a sling and can hit someone in the face missing the helmet and eye-pro. I doubt you'll be rolling boulders at them like in the old days.

Your forces probably would fight of US troops stationed inside the UK, but to think it would be without serious impact is a bit of a joke.

>>29310272
Nuclear deterrence is already a bit late, the war is on chaps, it's UK vs the world. Nuclear use just means you're going to get facefucked 10x harder. When the UK loses is it prepared to commit revenge strikes with everything they have under the sea? I was talking about land based assets btw, I would be shocked and amazed if the UK didn't have and land/air based nuclear weapons.

Your motivation for them to do crap is the fact that in OP's scenario everyone's already at war with the UK.

Anyone got a map of all the US bases in Europe? I know there's a bunch of them including some rather large airbases.

Easy. Tell all the new true owners of Britain that we'll co-pay new mosques. The island would fall in 8 hours.

>>29310350
>I would be shocked and amazed if the UK didn't have and land/air based nuclear weapons.
There has never been a land based nuclear force other than in that the RAF takes off from the land. As countries both the US and Soviet Union had a vast amount of space in which to disperse silos and associated command systems, the UK did not meaning that any static silo type force would be far too easy to target. Initially the nuclear deterrent was entirely air based, which was then transferred to the navy in it's entirely over 30 years ago when the Vulcans retired from the nuclear strike role. Today the UK's nuclear force consists of Trident submarines, of which at least 1 is always at sea.

>When the UK loses is it prepared to commit revenge strikes with everything they have under the sea?
That's the ENTIRE point of the system. Even if you take the entirety of the mainland UK you're still going to get a bloodied nose from at least one boat, and that significantly raises the costs for any potential aggressor.

>>29310511
>it actually happens and the sub just happens to be off the nork coast

>>29310052

There are 3 Astute class and 4 Trafalgar class subs in active service.

There are 12 Virginia class subs, 3 Seawolfs and 39 active Los Angeles class subs.

That's just from the US.

So please tell me how the mighty Royal Navy is going to devastate the US Navy, let alone the combined navies of the world....

Please. The US Coast Guard could conquer that island.

The US may conquer Britain Militarily, but with the amount of Muslims in the country they'll be fighting Iraq Insurgency 2.0 again

>>29311003

without a foreign supplied source of EFP's it wouldn't matter.

>>29307492

>Nuclear Submarines of all countries are tracked 24/7 and will be neutralized immediately, effectively disabling any threat of nuclear retaliation.

Wahaha! He's serious! Pay no attention to this man, people, he is deluded.

>>29310814
hit and run on the surface fleet, sure none of the subs survive, but neither do most of the carriers, sans carriers the USN is a hell of a lot less threatening

>>29306439
>Buckingham palace
Not Westminster, no one but tourists care about Buckingham palace.

>>29306439
With the way things are looking, I'm guessing 1 or 2 generations more, then it'll be a part of the middle east

>>29309480
>F-22 and F-35 wouldn't be in range
>what is air to air refueling

Air superiority would be attained quickly, no more than a month or two. After that, it would be exactly like Gulf War 1.0

Assuming every nation was working together, the UK wouldn't last 6 months.

>>29308522
>The UK has ZERO anti-ballistic missile defense
Sure It's not lime ASTER exists and has been tested for ABM use since 2011

> and literally all of their neighbors have nukes
Name them all, I count France only

>Moreover, all their second-strike capability is known globally, with the majority of their silos being pinpointed and labelled on Google Earth.
Literally what? You are chronically retarded. We run subs only.

Also a point for consideration, The UK runs the US Missile defense radars in Europe at RAF Fylingdales, without that your earliest warning sites in the US are California and Alaska.

If you guys think that Buckingham would fall in that space of time you are LAUGHABLY deluded, A feels good bro monarchy in a capital city is low down on the priority list compared to the several dozen militarily vital targets like active airbases and staging points

>>29310350
The only silo in the UK was a test build for the Blue streak program and our last freefall nuclear bombs from the V bomber force where decommissioned in, if memory serves, 1998

We have 3 Nuclear subs, at any given time 1 is out to sea and under a strict communications blackout with no telemetry back to the UK, if when they break that silence there is no response from the UK they contact any available UK forces in order to ascertain the cause, the Captain then opens "the letter of Last resort" the contents of which have never been listed but are likely target co-ordinates for all nations across the globe

>>29310350
>Anyone got a map of all the US bases in Europe? I know there's a bunch of them including some rather large airbases.
In total 114 sites with USAF personel.
The only combat aircraft based outside the UK are F-16s in Italy and A-10s and F-15 at Sprangdalhem in Germany, with EWACS and the logistics wing operation from Ramstien in Germany.

Attacking the UK without evacing their UK airbases would lose them their F-15C and E presence in Europe, Their Stratotanker wing and their best intel gathering site in Europe

>>29310099
>being this assmad
>trying to hide Britbong powerlevel
>taking greentext for face value

"what is a joke for $300, Alex"

>>29311515

If you somehow manage to trade one astute for an entire CBG every single time, that leave 8 CBGs and no modern subs for the RN.