What are your thoughts on war plan red? https://en.wikipedi

>the planners understood that the US would just outproduce them
Well, they weren't wrong.

>>31996592
What value is Britain to the US?

>>31996592
Patricide, nice. Should have gone through with it, could have save them from what they've become.

>>31996592
Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
-The only man worth being US President.

>>31996608
IIRC this was conceived at a time during the interwar period when US-British relations were pretty shitty and war was not the impossibility it is today.

>>31996629
No, really, what value is Britain to the us? Why would we bother?

>>31996638
To finish what you started when you threw that tea off the boat.

>>31996638
Land. America 2: Electric Boogaloo in Europe

>>31996592
Well with Brexit we may not have to liberate them from the Mudslimes after al.

>>31996592
>military plans how to beat a foreign country

Least surprising thing ever. I guarantee you that every country in the world that has a standing army worth speaking of has ready-made plans for a war against every one of its neighbors, no matter how peaceful.

>>31996638
they used to have value but they essentially cucked themselves and weakened their entire empire.

>>31996592
I think it would have relegated us to eternal regional power status -- albeit, with a few more states.

srsly, it's nothing more than "operation: take over canada".

>>31996629

There were two possibilities of war

1) trade dispute during an ongoing conflict

2) fascist takeover of the UK

When the UK went to war with Germany, War Plan Red was stopped and War Plan Black be modernized and sped up.

>>31996662
>cucked themselves

>fighting the biggest war in the history of man and turning bankrupt from it

Times were complex back then.

There were Nazi supporters in America and England. Things like euthenasia, sterilization of defunct individuals and minorities, etc were commonplace beliefs because they were logical and practical solutions to perceived problems in society. Times were.. Different back then. Lobotomies were seen as cures instead of brain damage. The Kennedy's had a family member lobotomized, it was seen as normal. During the Cold War there was a Communist political party. Imagine if there was an ISIS political party today! Its a wonder terrorism didn't happen until after the cold war.

Besides, its the militaries job to make contingency plans. There have been legit plans to put chickens in bombs to keep them warm so they wouldn't fail in cold conditions. It wouldn't surprise me if we had a plan to conquer Antarctica and weaponize penguins.

>>31997012
>Things like euthenasia, sterilization of defunct individuals and minorities, etc were commonplace beliefs because they were logical and practical solutions to problems in society.

And they still are

>>31996638
Britain is literally an isolated staging area for a further invasion of Europe. this is literally its main tactical value in a massive war such as WW2 or whatever else we may get up to. If you control it, you control the waterways to all of northern Europe and Russia.

>>31996592
I think most countries had plans like that about other countries. Hardly surprising.

>>31996761
Not to mention having to give up most of their empire due to American pressure.
>>31996662
Every empire comes to an end. Every one.

>>31997116
I agree with this. What else would Generals due during peace time?
The Schlieffen plan was though of at the very beginning of the century and wasn't used until WW1.

>>31997025

The problem is we are still bound to the same stupidity our ancestors were.

Just as today lobotomies are known to be cruel and inhuman deliberate mutilation, in 50 years current medical practices are likely to be seen as destructive and primitive solutions that don't fix anything and only create more problems.

Confirmation bias and people ignorantly believing things "professionals" tell them are still problems we have.

File: 1478994999177.jpg (221KB, 792x792px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 792x792px

>>31997012
>Its a wonder terrorism didn't happen until after the cold war.

>But WHY would the US want to fight the most powerful seafaring nation on earth, especially one that utterly dominates the ocean that touches 50% of the US's coastline?

Why, indeed.

>>31997193
>(((professionals)))

>>31997272
The British were dragging their feet on repaying the US and US companies for debts incurred during WW1. Rumors also existed that the royal family had members who became Nazis or worse Communists.

There was also the thought that Britain was going to smack down the growing power of the US at that time.

The world was a very different place diplomatically. It was not US vs THEM. It was us with him vs them with her vs another them.