Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "Could US military conquer UK if it wanted to? (2019)" video.

Next can they invade EU?
5
They're still as sharp as ever, but mainly lie in diplomatic power nowadays instead of hard power
4
Easier than Iraq? What are you smoking?
4
Britain would focus its submarine force on the aircraft carriers and dispatch of hundreds of US jets a pop. The US' incompetence at protecting their aircraft carriers is widely known, with European, Canadian and Australian subs sinking sometimes entire Carrier Strike Groups in training, all while being hunted down by both helicopters and other subs (and sometimes getting away with it unscathed to boot...). You're not taking this into account and blindly assume that the US can even hunt down a competent sub crew at all. The UK would probably try everything it could to turn those precious aircraft carriers into billion dollar sea reefs, and they'd be succesful more than once if you look at the US' history of having those things sunk in training. The French even did it with a sub from the 80's, so go figure.
4
Not far, it would struggle keeping a hold of relatively weak countries. Holding onto Canada and Mexico might be too much already, let alone the world. It's difficult to occupy countries, especially in this day and age.
3
@emocowboy4684 The British fought in Northern Ireland for 30 years to get it under control. And they only ever got it under control because the border disappeared with the EU. You don't know what you're talking about, fighting an insurgency is much more difficult than you think. It is virtually impossible to occupy the UK and keep the insurgents under control in this scenario.
3
Julius Caesar They'd be crushed if it weren't for other European empires frustrating the British war effort.
2
@iaingunn2001 They can't even operate all of it without running out of oil, nor can they project power in any meaningful way, but yeah technically they have the numbers
2
lmao Britannia ackbar *BOOM*
1
You can't, the UK has the EU. You can blockade the UK from the continent, but not from the sea.
1
@i_ased_i3705 Trade/economics are not accounted for in the scenario, because that would involve allies to begin with. That's like saying you can put a naval blockade around the US while ignoring that Canada and Mexico exist.
1
You wouldn't want the EU in the fight. You'd lose that
1
We still would back them up tho
1
@SF-hw7ng It literally leaves our defence and intelligence cooperation unchanged. Only our economic/political relation is less close, but still very much allied. We're better allies with post-brexit UK than the US, but everyone believes the US will help militarily if push comes to shove.
1
We are not spending on the military because we had free protection AND a huge trade surplus with the US in exchange for supporting their bullshit foreign interventions. When that is over (looks like Trump has no intention of continuing that) the EU has the funds and technology to have a military roughly comparable to the US. But eh, that's such a waste of money
1
@ayushkumar-bg1xf You really think the US has any control over the British channel or the EU-UK tunnel? They;re not in a position to starve the UK as long as the EU is there
1
Ok I really want to see this one haha
1
Russia and the EU also would be able to defend just fine.
1
@joshuawilliams9020 Even assuming countries are easy to occupy, you wouldn't get any further than taking the Americas. The EU is too strong to take, Russia is too strong to take, etc. If you take war economies into account you'd ever have to fear being invaded yourself, because if the EU would go full war economy it would outproduce you and have almost double the population pool for soldiers, all while having similar technology... That's not even taking Russia into account, which would join the EU against the US, nor China. War is not about what your peace time numbers are. It is about your war economy, population pool, technology and resources. The US can only really dominate its own continent, no more than that. Well, parts of Africa as well, as long as no foreign forces get involved trying to stop you. And the second question is whether there will be an intervention from the other competent war economies to what you'd be doing in the Americas. You certainly couldn't protect it all from a counter invasion.
1
@1IbramGaunt Yeah, the main source of power for the UK is their impressive diplomatic power. There is literally nobody who can attack the UK without facing some very powerful allies. US attacks UK? EU and UK destroy the invasion force. EU attacks UK? US swoops in and together they make the UK a fortress. Some other force attacks UK? US, EU and UK will oppose you... The UK is a major power thanks to their diplomatic influence, not their military hard power.
1
@emocowboy4684 What inevitable? No country can be run without its population cooperating, period. And the US did jack shit to defeat ISIS except being one of dozens of countries dropping bombs. It's the Kurds and other local groups that did the boots on the ground fighting. And ISIS is not comparable to begin with, because we are talking about an insurgency which virtually the entire country they're in supports. Even something like the yellow vests in France is putting a dent in their economy, let alone an entire population not wanting to cooperate with your occupation.
1
Together we really are not that small at all. We realised that we were getting small after WW2 and subsequently created the EU to stay highly influential
1
RIP the US in that case
1
@deprogramm Do you know what the state of the US military was just before WW2? About the same as the bloody Netherlands. The US pre 1942 or so was really pathetic. They'd fall faster than France if they had Germany as neighbour. That against the British Empire? Don't make me laugh... The US wasn't always a superpower you know.
1
@KristianFraNorge Yeah, it's not about current peace time numbers. It is about your war economy capabilities, population pool and resources. And of course technology. A country that has all of the above is very powerful, regardless of their peacetime military. Best historical example is Nazi Germany. Went from a pathetic country with a nonexistant military to beating three major powers at once. They mauled France and Britain and were in the process of mauling the USSR (before the Russians got their act together in 1942, that is). They went from pathetic to one of the most powerful militaries (perhaps the single most powerful) on the planet within a year or two. And the main reason they even lost at all is because they seriously lacked fuel
1
@AsukaLangleyS02 Sure, I agree that France did more in WW2 than people like to say. The Battle of France was so big that the French suffered almost as many deaths in that battle alone as the US did from beginning to end of the entire war... And the Free French Forces were much more important in North Africa than for example the Americans were (but according to pop culture....). Also in the Middle East. I didn't mean the Nazis beat France as a whole, or Britain. I meant that they defeated both in the battle of France. And they almost managed to defeat the USSR too. The main reason they couldn't was their lack of fuel. And all of that starting from their pathetic Versailles treaty state. Same with the Americans in WW2. They started out with a pathetic military with WW1 equipment and 300k personnel... That is a military compared to that of the bloody Netherlands at that time. By the end they were a formidable force because of their war economy and population pool (technology was mostly British though). So really, it's not about your current peace time numbers, it is about your underlying qualities.
1
Soviet Union would have invaded the Nazis. They had a plan ready. So in the end Barbarossa was the best way to go for the Germans. The only thing that kept them from winning was lack of fuel.
1
@adamorick2872 If you combine all of the EU navies, they actually have more warships than the US and about equal amount of attack subs. The question is whether the US would ever reach European shores to begin with.
1
@clarke1878 Actually, nuclear powered subs are inferior to diesel subs. The nuclear reactor is much louder, giving those subs a distinct disadvantage in warfare. However, nuclear subs can travel very far and stay submerged very long, that is their main benefit but they can't fight as well as a diesel. For the US it makes sense to have nuclear powered subs to project power further away, but for a defensive navy a diesel sub that operates relatively close to shore is superior.
1
@epzanoletty I'm saying that it isn't self-evident that the US would be able to use its carriers. It would lose at least a few, along with hundreds of jets. If in training the US had a carrier and multiple destroyers sank by ONE submarine that they knew was coming and had their own subs and helis hunting down, then it's unfair to just assume that British subs would be easily hunted down. And this training fiasco happened on many occasions, not just one. Submarines are incredibly difficult to find and if operated by a competent crew, ridiculously dangerous. It only takes one competent crew to take down half a CSG, including the carrier, judging by the training missions.
1
Not the EU and probably not India either
1