US vs UK-Canada-Australia-Japan allaince

Deimos Anomaly · Post by **Deimos Anomaly** » 2002-07-26 09:36am

For some ridiculous and unspecified reason, the United States of America is at war with an alliance consisting of the following countries:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Canada

Commonwealth of Australia

Japan

For some other and possibly even more ridiculous reason, all the nukes of the countries involved have become unstable, requiring a lot of work to be done to make them usable again, which will take at least 3 years.

What happens?

Next of Kin · Post by **Next of Kin** » 2002-07-26 09:39am

France surrenders unconditionally. Oh wait, they're not even in the war!

Manji · Post by **Manji** » 2002-07-26 09:52am

Next of Kin wrote:France surrenders unconditionally. Oh wait, they're not even in the war!

But they surrender unconditionally anyway.

Manji · Post by **Manji** » 2002-07-26 09:55am

I don't think we'd win. I don't think we'd lose either - they'd never manage to invade us. Truth be told, if all the countries you mentioned were one country, or were countries side by side in one continent, I think we could beat them (though it would be long as in long and hard as in hard). But not as they are - we'd be fighting on too many fronts.

After years of death and slaughter we'd probably agree peace terms with them and the war woudl end without a clear winner.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-07-26 11:38am

The United States could defeat the combined military of all these nations, but it would not be a cake walk. I dont think we could conquer and occupy them without some sort of draft to increase the size of the land forces.

AWACS, Carriers, and 688 class boats give us a great big advantage. Quality wise I think the members of all these nations are fairly equal. Americans will simply be able to field more of them and with higher quality equipment.

Canada would receive the worst of it since they are right next to us.

In my opinion Britain would give us our biggest trouble. Of all these nations they have the most signifigant threat. ( Good infantry, modern aircraft, subs)
But unless Im wrong the British never corrected the problem of not having their own AWACS type aircraft after the Falklands war. Without it, I believe its pretty tough to ever dominate airspace in a war.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-07-26 01:16pm

I'm always wondering why it's always U.S. vs this country plus that country plus that country... I'm flattered that you people think so much of our military, but this is getting kind of old. How about a real world senereo, like the DPRK crossing the DMZ.

Anyway, here's my take

Japan is no threat. They lack a true military. While our bases in country could be overrun, Japan would not pose a threat to our home turf, much less to our forces in the Pacific theater.

Australia is not a threat. What would they do? Our Pacific fleet would easily keep them contained.

The UK poses a serious threat to our shipping lines. Their attack subs are the best in the world, and would do alot of damage. We would deploy our subs to do the same. The British surface fleets are not capable of posing a significant threat to the U.S. Navy, and invasion by the British is out of the question. We on the other hand have serious military assests in mainland Europe, which would be brought to bear against British strategic targets on their own soil. Unfortunatly for the British, we can reach out and touch them, but they can't touch us.

Last is Canada. Almost all the soldiers we'll lose in this conflict will be due to our northern campaign. Canada's got a world class military that can stand toe to toe with us, but the best that will do will turn the conflict into a war of attrition. From a strategic standpoint, all major Canadian cities are very close to the border, making them easy pickings for our strategic bombers. There really isn't much Canada can do. Their forces will be under continuous air assault, and when they meet up with the our armor divisions, it's all over.

Obviously, this fight wouldn't be as *pretty* as the Gulf, it wouldn't be too terribly difficult.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-07-26 01:33pm

It just occured to me that Britain is a nuclear power. It would be wise to not even bother trying to invade their homeland even if we wanted to.

I agree, why always someone vs the US. How about a 2nd Falklands War?

If Britain and Argentina fought a war today would the outcome still be a British victory, albiet with a very bloodied nose?

Britain still does not have a true deck carrier with proper AEW aircraft. Did Argentina purchase more anti ship missles? They only had 5 in 1982.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-07-26 02:40pm

Give a few years more and the British Navy will get its new Type-45 destroyers and carriers with JSFs. Right now the Argentinian economy is in deep crisis and I doubt that their soldiers would be anxious to go face to face with Britain again, knowing what happened in 1982. Sure, the British loss wasn't far away twenty years ago, but they are still far ahead of the Argentinians. Although I'm hardly a professional expert in this matter, I'd say that Britain has the most efficent military in Europe and the only navy capable of operations overseas.

I agree that USA vs *insert the country names here* is getting tiredsome, at least on other forums. It can also easily lead to lots of useless country bashing.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-07-26 03:50pm

I know the UK has a carrier underdevelopment. If they are not pinched by budget contraints, ie: it sits in port, the British will be able to participate side by side with the US even more than they do now.

Dont know anything about the new Type-45, I will have to go look it up.

David · Post by **David** » 2002-07-26 05:37pm

Great Britian and Northern Ireland in an alliance???

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2002-07-26 05:50pm

Great Britain includes Northern Ireland despite what some members of its population would like.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-07-26 10:32pm

How many of these new Brit carriers are to be built, and what is their carrying capacity? I remember them as being nice pieces of hardware, but not the most impressive around.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2002-07-26 10:42pm

Anyway...

Canada will be beaten into the ground hard, fast, and early. Attacks on other enemies will not begin until the enemy on our border is defeated.

Japan is a non-entity with no real military strength.

Australia will be contained while we deal with the only remotely threatening opponent on this list, Britain, whom we will defeat with numbers and air power. The US has more carriers than the entire rest of NATO combined. And you thought the Luftwaffe bombed the shit out of you.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-07-27 12:03am

I like the premise "for some strange reason." It is short, to the point, and wastes little breath.

I don't think that Japan would have much to offer that alliance. It has only the barest traces of a military, and it really has no offensive capabilities, if you take out the American assets within its territory.

Australia has a bit more to offer, but it really boils down to the US vs. Canada and the UK. I think that the American capabilities with super-carriers and aircraft would allow them to win, although it would be a fight to see.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-27 02:50am

Australia fight the US...........pfffffft....

Sorry..... can't breathe..... what a laugh........

Perhaps you could replace us with New Zealand....

But if we were fighting, I think the US would lose some of its intel coverage in the region if AUstralia was lost. WE're pretty much their only ally in the region.

ANd what if CHina used this opportunity to attack Taiwan? WOuld the US seek to retaliate, as it says it would? I seriously doubt that many countries would just sit by and twiddle their fingers while this was going on.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2002-07-27 05:25am

There will be two carriers which have the capability for one air group of 40 aircrafts which is about the same as the French carrier Charles De Gaulle can take. Nimitz-class carries one air wing which means slightly over 70 aircrafts. So the new British carriers certainly aren't going to be small.

I think that you guys are underestimating the Japanese. After all their military expenditures are among the highest in the world and have dramatically increased since late 80s. Their "Self Defense Forces" are now putting their money on several new naval projects, some of which are an overkill for simple homeland defense.

Lusankya · Post by **Lusankya** » 2002-07-27 05:29am

And if I was in charge of Australia, and wanted to join forces with Japan against the US, if the Japanese couldn't find an excuse to increase their "homeland defence forces", I'd create the "Japanese Division of the Australian Army". Naturally, once I wouldn't deploy these troops without the express permission of the Japanese government...

Soulman · Post by **Soulman** » 2002-07-27 05:27pm

Japan actually has a prettyy good military, it includes the following:

F-15J - 191
Kongo class destroyers (Arleigh Burke) - 4
Other destroyers - 9
Frigates - 21 (3,000 ton+)

They have the highly capable Type-90 tank which on par with any other tank in the world. The 74 isn't bad either....

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-07-27 05:32pm

Soulman wrote:Japan actually has a prettyy good military, it includes the following:

F-15J - 191
Kongo class destroyers (Arleigh Burke) - 4
Other destroyers - 9
Frigates - 21 (3,000 ton+)

They have the highly capable Type-90 tank which on par with any other tank in the world. The 74 isn't bad either....

That is still laughable compared to the other militaries that we are talking about. It is more than enough to protect Japan, but not enough to conduct a long-range, offensive war against an opponent with a state of the art defensive suite.

Post by **weemadando** » 2002-07-28 12:59pm

Most people overlook Australia, in wargames (and at times just to piss other navies off) our sub captains have gotten numerous un-challenged hull-shots of US and other nations carriers. Our surface navy, though mainly geared to coastal defense and interdiction is still capable of fighting a holding action at the very least in order to stall any US advances in the South Pacific. Our airforce would be severely out numbered and probably out-classed. However, there is really no way that the US would be able to win a ground war in Australia under the stated circumstances. Until LSTs could move armour in it would be a lop-sided conflict with a significant home-ground and MASSIVE training advantage. And the fact is that if the US wanted to move in armour, then their options are limited. They could try and break through the barrier reef (very risky as running aground is highly likely), run the Timor Gap (think a gibraltaresque deal) to get to Darwin (pointless as Australians could indefinately hold the American landing forces in either one of the northern penisulas, or steam south for Sydney and Melbourne (probably the most likely option, but the moment they land they would be in urban fighting against a hostile population).

If Australia pushed into America... Well, we wouldn't go that well, we have 2 (count 'em) LSTs and limited heavy troop carrying capacity. However, using C-130s with fighter escort to make fast-turnaround infantry drops at rough field locations it would be possible to rapidly get a large amount of inf. on the ground, however, as usual, the hostile terrain and population would make life difficult. The best places (going by Australian Army training) to land troops would be between San Diego and Los Angeles and utilise them mainly in the south-western desert regions.

Over all the conflict would last at least 5 years, with such terrain features as the Rocky Mountains and the numerous cities providing excellent defensive cover. The ability of the American Air Force to dominate the sky would be jeopardised if "alliance" troops choose to fight in built up environs. The unwillingness to destroy large tracts of urban land and risk excessive civilian casualties in air-strikes would place an emphasis on infantry and armour. And again, by utilising urban fighting tactics, the "alliance" infantry with, on average, better training, would most likely prevail. It is likely that once the following centres fell: Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle and Miami (or other major Florida/Southern city) then the resolve of the American public would either collapse, or strengthen out of sight. However the assets that would have been lost in the efforts to hold those cities would not easily be recuped due to the taking of many of the major ports, plus the fact that amongst the "allies" are the majority of America's industrial trading partners. So though the spirit may be willing the body, may well be unable to continue.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-07-28 02:17pm

But see? You are still talking about a long, defensive war. Only the United Kingdom and, to a lesser extent, Canada, have any way of taking the fight to the United States. They would lose. Australia and Japan can only fight defensive wars, and the outcome of such a conflict would never really be in any doubt.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2002-07-28 02:20pm

weemadando wrote:Most people overlook Australia, in wargames (and at times just to piss other navies off) our sub captains have gotten numerous un-challenged hull-shots of US and other nations carriers.

British and Australian subs the biggest threat the U.S. Navy faces. But remember, we too have submarines, and lots of them.

However, there is really no way that the US would be able to win a ground war in Australia under the stated circumstances.

There is no need for a ground campaign against Australia. The U.S. objective is simply to protect its assets in the Pacific.

If Australia pushed into America... Well, we wouldn't go that well, we have 2 (count 'em) LSTs and limited heavy troop carrying capacity. However, using C-130s with fighter escort to make fast-turnaround infantry drops at rough field locations it would be possible to rapidly get a large amount of inf. on the ground, however, as usual, the hostile terrain and population would make life difficult. The best places (going by Australian Army training) to land troops would be between San Diego and Los Angeles and utilise them mainly in the south-western desert regions.

The troop carriers would be sunk before crossing Hawaii and your C-130 idea is extremely ill conceived.
The very few troops you might be able to get on our soil would be easily slaughtered. And trying to hide in urban areas would be unwise. Do you have any idea how many American civilians own guns?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-07-28 02:33pm

Why aren't you people listening to me? The 4 country alliance mentioned has virtually no ability to fight a prolonged, offensive war. The best the British were able to do in the Falklands was to send in some Paratroopers and Gerkhas. Granted, those were effective soldiers, but there simply are not enough of them to allow for a successful offensive war against a well-equipped and numerous enemy. The Canadian forces would not have the ability to launch an offensive war, either, though they would have a better chance at directly attacking the United States.

Japan and Australia's offensive capabilities are laughable. They cannot conduct warfare overseas. The outcome of a war in which one side cannot attack and is spread out is never in doubt. The United States would be able to conquer each of these countries, one at a time, while simultaneously holding the other three countries (at the least). Such a war would be over before it began.