Poll: Can England be invaded

[Therumancer]

Snip

Germany is U.S's pet project. But it is getting old, and like a pet is getting less attention. The new pet(Israeli) is all the rage currently it seems.

That said, germany is the only real sizable nation to actively defend europe..


Note: Submarines? Who cares about submarines? The U.S are into drone research.

I consider taking down the Berlin Wall to be the dumbest thing Reagan did (and one of the very few problems I have with him). To the best of my knowlege however Germany does not currently have much of a direct military prescence. The heavy hitters in the region being England, France, and Spain for the most part.

As far as Submarines go, they are the backbone of US military might. A lot of presidents don't like that (and many fools don't understand it and want to downsize the naval fleets) but the big advantage the US has are these massive oceans that people have to get stuff accross to really give us grief. Whether it be ICBMs, or ships full of troops. The more
boats and subs we have out there with missles, the more ICBMs we could shoot down to prevent them from getting to the US, and the more likely we could decimate any incoming invasion forces. Nations like Russia or China having to get their tanks/men accross the ocean to reach us.

Not to mention the fact that in a real war, having an undetectable submarine right off the coast of an enemy nation firing off 40-50 nuclear warheads is a good thing. That's one of the things that freaks out the world is that nobody knows where a decent amount of our nuclear arsenal is. The Cuban Missle crisis was a big deal because it was placing missles within EZ strike range of the US. On the other hand we're a group of bastages ourselves because at least for the moment if we've got the equivilent of that at any given time, nobody knows.


Then again I live near a Sub-base and hung out with a lot of bubbleheads, so as a result I have a very sub-centric view of "total war" and feel they are one of the most important things in our arsenal.

This is why the US turned itself into the pre-eminant naval power in the world, and we're foolish not to do everything in our power to keep things that way.

-

Drones are cute but fairly dumb in my opinion. The idea behind them seems to be based around fighting wars the wrong way. The idea being that instead of say marching troops in, we could fly a bunch of RC planes with guns, and selectively take out someone like Al-Sadr without risking much in the way of collateral damage or the lives of our troops.

It's cute, but honestly I feel that the purpose of the US military is basically to be a blunt insturment. When we send the military collateral damage should be a foregone conclusion (sort of like World War 2) cities should be turned into craters. If the military is there the US propaganda machine should be in full force selling the enemy as the mortal incarnation of the devil (like we did to the Nazis) so nobody thinks about their wives, families, or who might be an innocent civilian, and if they do they are beyond caring. That's how you fight a war correctly.

Drones seem primed to encourage exactly the kind of stupidity we're engaged in. These kinds of methods simply do not work for changing anything, and it doesn't matter if we send in our troops to try and play police man, or if we send them there to effectively fly kites.


In the end if we wind up facing a situation (however it happens) where Russia and China are moving on the US, our priorities are #1: stopping their missles as they come accross the ocean. #2: hitting them with our own missles. #3: Stopping their forces from getting accross the ocean. #4: Killing as many of them as possible in their back yards, while destroying their infratructure. Albeit not nessicarly in that order.

Putting a sniper rifle or light rockets on an RC plane with a basic AI program is a cute idea, but in the end it's not an idea for the scale of warfare the miliary is intended to deal with.

Not to mention the fact that being AI guided people are going to complain about the collateral damage anyway (unless we have our propaganda network in force, which we rarely do during these police action) and we're going to listen being stupid, bench them, and then send the humans in anyway "Omg! it was shooting civilians!".

Now if we ever design a Bolo or ED-409 (for proper military use as opposed to police work) then we can talk about AI drones in the military.

>>>----Therumancer--->





>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Glerken]

Of course England can be invaded.

You're not that special.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Well any country could be invaded (except America. USA! USA!) with the help of enough people. I don't know why you would want to invade England. I mean they didn't do anything. It's a matter of you could but why would you want to. No country (except USA) is completely invulnerable. Also if you couldn't tell, this is coming from a hardcore republican.

 

[jasoncyrus]

I go with yes but why would you want to?

I mean really, other than its juggernaught economy (strongest currency in the world ftw!), it's got nothing worth invading for. It's a shithole and i know, i freakin live in the UK.

 

[Deathsong17]

Your poll makes no sense.
"Is England invincable?"
"Yes, but why would you want to?"

WTF?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

I mentioned drone research because of the simple fact. You don't have to train them. Submarines are good, but drone research is limitless.

 

[dallan262]

We have the greatest army in the world except on numbers (America and China beat us there). I'm sorry, USA, but it's true, we do have a better army, you simply beat us on numbers, but our technology is actually just as good as or better than yours on pretty much all fronts. The only problem is that cost cutting Labour don't like spending so hardly any sees the front line. If we did have that stuff out there instead of lying around in equipment stores back at Sandhurst, Cosford, Plymouth, Cranwell and everywhere else, then it's a widely held fact we would easily be able to beat the Americans in battle. As it happens, simply because of that we would be able to resist most attacks on our country (not counting nuclear warfare, but since we also apparently have nukes [I'm still slightly unsure there though] then everyone would lose there).

That said, no country, even America, is completely invulnerable. I know quite a bit about military tactics, warfare in general, the UK Armed Forces and have first hand experience of UK military training. But I can safely say that with a well trained and large enough force, we could still be invaded successfully. By the same token we could probably invade America (thank you, 'special relationship', take what you want, why don't you?). Love Actually reference in the brackets, by the way. No country is invulnerable, and the UK is no exception.

England can be invaded, and has been a couple times. I'm fine in Scotland, so far unconquered, and since we werent included in the "invulnerable" statment then uhm, we could just walk over the border, invasion commences.

By the way, England hasn't been successfully invaded since 1066. Since then, the English have beaten the Scottish in several wars and it was only the rise of the Stuart monarchy that finally united the two countries. Hence your comment is historically BS. Sorry, but any history textbook will support my statement over yours.

eh you seem to have forgotten the jacobite uprising that happened in the 17th century where if im not mistaken the jacobites managed to get as far as derby before prince charles made the bullshit error of choosing to fight on a bullshit marshy warground where the jacobites couldnt do a highland charge


and as far as i know derby is in england and the 17th century is a bit after 1066 therefore england has been invaded but reading your post again i noticed the successful part so ill .....QUICK LOOK A BADGER WITH A GUN>>>>

 

[massau]

if china does it you wont have a chance but you will always get help from America and Europa. so you might get conquered but after some days you get some back up and you will take it back

 

[Squarez]

They never invaded England, merely drove the English out of Scotland, they may have gained land but they didn't take over the entire country.

Besides, saying the Romans/ William the Conquerer did it, holds no value in today's terms.

If it was just one country against England then I very much doubt it could be invaded as they'd get butt-raped after the US would inevitably help.

But all-on-one, England would have no chance.

P.S. If it was all on one ANY country could be invaded, even the US.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

We don't

Anyone could be invaded, but we all know that any full scale war in the future will be nuclear. Our submarine based nuclear detterant is capable of destroying any location we choose on this planet, and America, if you launched on us, we could have the entire eastern seaboard wiped from existence within three minutes and still have time for that last cup of tea before we all died. We also have the best trained troops in the world and some of the best equipped. And the SAS, who could forget those guys. Go England.

riight.....i think our anti-icbm systems would shoot your missles out of the sky b4 they even hit.

and america has the best gear for their soliders.
after all, most of the tech your using came FROM US.

and some people call americans arrogant, i guess briatin his some guys with their heads up their asses

The only warning you would have of a british nuclear strike would be washington dc dissappearing in a mushroom cloud and they don't use ICBMs'. our submarines are almost undetectable. There could even be one aimed at dc or new york right now and you'd never know. True your retaliation would wipe us off the map. and remember, it only takes one to get through the almost non-existant missile defence systems.
And i think you will find, most of our small arms come are designed by chzech companies, most of our aircraft are either english or joint european design and lets face it, american equipment may be advanced, but its hardly reliable. Example-M16. Almost useless. Jams more than a jam sandwich.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Pff. England? Invulnerable? If you didn't have such good pilots you'd be posing that question in German. Answer to your question being, no.

Good pilots & moral, not to mention the genius who invented the spitfire. Not to mention an amazing navy.
May want to brush up on your history.

You might want to brush up on your history, since the Hurricane got more kills during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire. And the Royal Navy wasn't a particularly big obstacle for Hitler in invading Britain; they didn't have enough of a presence in the English Channel to prevent an invasion. And morale doesn't stop a Panzer III from gunning you down.

but hitler didnt invade britain :S all he did was bomb us so we couldnt help defend the other countries:|

I'm...aware of that. Did I say something to suggest otherwise?

 

[El Poncho]

Pff. England? Invulnerable? If you didn't have such good pilots you'd be posing that question in German. Answer to your question being, no.

Good pilots & moral, not to mention the genius who invented the spitfire. Not to mention an amazing navy.
May want to brush up on your history.

You might want to brush up on your history, since the Hurricane got more kills during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire. And the Royal Navy wasn't a particularly big obstacle for Hitler in invading Britain; they didn't have enough of a presence in the English Channel to prevent an invasion. And morale doesn't stop a Panzer III from gunning you down.

but hitler didnt invade britain :S all he did was bomb us so we couldnt help defend the other countries:|

I'm...aware of that. Did I say something to suggest otherwise?

well u said the navy wasnt a big obstacle for hitler invading britain, but he didnt invade it.

 

[ElephantGuts]

Pff. England? Invulnerable? If you didn't have such good pilots you'd be posing that question in German. Answer to your question being, no.

Good pilots & moral, not to mention the genius who invented the spitfire. Not to mention an amazing navy.
May want to brush up on your history.

You might want to brush up on your history, since the Hurricane got more kills during the Battle of Britain than the Spitfire. And the Royal Navy wasn't a particularly big obstacle for Hitler in invading Britain; they didn't have enough of a presence in the English Channel to prevent an invasion. And morale doesn't stop a Panzer III from gunning you down.

but hitler didnt invade britain :S all he did was bomb us so we couldnt help defend the other countries:|

I'm...aware of that. Did I say something to suggest otherwise?

well u said the navy wasnt a big obstacle for hitler invading britain, but he didnt invade it.

There were plenty of other reasons for that, mainly the fact that the Luftwaffe failed to achieve air superiority over Britain.

 

[Jharry5]

Yes, the UK can be invaded. An invasion is when a hostile force enters your territory; so in order to invade, they'd only have to land on the beaches. The question should be whether it'd be successful or not...

 

[ShortCommings]

who would want to invade england? what the hell do we have that anyone would want? they after jade goody? ask us nicly and we will happily ship her to them, though she may smell a bit now

 

[stormyfs]

I think some people here need a reality check. It is impossible to land enough ordinance using only airdrops to conquer an area the size of Britain. Lots of people pretending to be well informed are sadly mis-guided in the real logistics of an invasion.

Cue people saying they would drop in task force to open up a bridgehead blah blah blah...

And right on cue...
It would depend on your overall strategy. If you wanted a rapid conclusion and were not worried about immediate casualties to friendly forces, then you could place small units, like a 4 'man' tank platoon in a reasonably remote place and allow them to engage targets of opportunity. You'd have the option of supporting them with an infantry platoon (or more) to secure DZs for ammunition and fuel, or allow them to acquire their own fuel (lol motorway services - although this does restrict their concealment and guerilla tactics) giving the defender the option of either allowing a small unit, which can potentially be reinforced and expanded over time, to have free reign through the countryside where it performs small-scale warfare on supplies... Or, they'd divert military resources from the main front in an attempt to lock-down the unit, expending manpower, ammunition and fuel as well.

Of course, if your method of invasion is based on the siege mentality, and you have all the time in the world, then airdropping armour really wouldn't be needed.
Unfortunately, the general population of most countries prefer a short war, so the invasion of Britain would probably be closer to:
1) Shell/missile strike/bomb concentrations of British troops in the local area
2) Amphibious landings supported by special forces
3) Local town garrisoned, continued air cover to protect initial beach-head
4) Landing of non-amphib light armour
5) Advance stronghold by stronghold to London
Which would bring the UK to a state similar to Iraq, where a garrison force would be fighting insurgency (provided everyone hasn't given up, and nobody liked our new overlords) and the invasion would be a new hearts and minds operation.

Naturally, going off-piste like everyone else seems to be, I'll ignore the Geneva Convention, and my personal method of invasion would be an suprise initial assault on naval facilities a la Pearl Harbour, after infiltrating Special Forces into key jobs (security at the nuclear power stations/military installations, police officers, Royal Logistics Corps, etc) and then whilst they performed such wonderful tasks as "blow up all the fuel" and for the more mechanically minded "screw with the vehicles" I would concentrate cruise missile firepower on barracks, airfields and supply depots followed by several beach landings in different locations, after a set of forced naval engagements to reduce the RN capacity even further.
Once I had secured the local town at the beach-heads, I would shoot 1 in 10 of the population as an example of what happens if you disobey my evil flip-flop wearing empire...
Sorry, I went off into dreamland there.
It happens every-so-often when trying to convince the "NO! Mah Countree Is Supah Inveenceebubble!" brigade to use their common sense. Which I guess isn't so common after all, eh?

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

We don't

Anyone could be invaded, but we all know that any full scale war in the future will be nuclear. Our submarine based nuclear detterant is capable of destroying any location we choose on this planet, and America, if you launched on us, we could have the entire eastern seaboard wiped from existence within three minutes and still have time for that last cup of tea before we all died. We also have the best trained troops in the world and some of the best equipped. And the SAS, who could forget those guys. Go England.

riight.....i think our anti-icbm systems would shoot your missles out of the sky b4 they even hit.

and america has the best gear for their soliders.
after all, most of the tech your using came FROM US.

and some people call americans arrogant, i guess briatin his some guys with their heads up their asses

The only warning you would have of a british nuclear strike would be washington dc dissappearing in a mushroom cloud and they don't use ICBMs'. our submarines are almost undetectable. There could even be one aimed at dc or new york right now and you'd never know. True your retaliation would wipe us off the map. and remember, it only takes one to get through the almost non-existant missile defence systems.
And i think you will find, most of our small arms come are designed by chzech companies, most of our aircraft are either english or joint european design and lets face it, american equipment may be advanced, but its hardly reliable. Example-M16. Almost useless. Jams more than a jam sandwich.

You do know that gun is probably older then you right? Its the infantrymen's rifle. Made to be mass-produced and semi-reliable. 'Cause lets face it. Outfitting the meat shield in nice stuff doesn't really help.

That said, didn't a british sub crash into a french one? Good luck getting across the atlantic if you can't steer clear of another fucking sub.


That said. The U.S operates 18 nuclear-armed submarines.

That said, isrealis are more nuclear strapped then you cheeky britishmen.

 

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

We don't

Anyone could be invaded, but we all know that any full scale war in the future will be nuclear. Our submarine based nuclear detterant is capable of destroying any location we choose on this planet, and America, if you launched on us, we could have the entire eastern seaboard wiped from existence within three minutes and still have time for that last cup of tea before we all died. We also have the best trained troops in the world and some of the best equipped. And the SAS, who could forget those guys. Go England.

riight.....i think our anti-icbm systems would shoot your missles out of the sky b4 they even hit.

and america has the best gear for their soliders.
after all, most of the tech your using came FROM US.

and some people call americans arrogant, i guess briatin his some guys with their heads up their asses

The only warning you would have of a british nuclear strike would be washington dc dissappearing in a mushroom cloud and they don't use ICBMs'. our submarines are almost undetectable. There could even be one aimed at dc or new york right now and you'd never know. True your retaliation would wipe us off the map. and remember, it only takes one to get through the almost non-existant missile defence systems.
And i think you will find, most of our small arms come are designed by chzech companies, most of our aircraft are either english or joint european design and lets face it, american equipment may be advanced, but its hardly reliable. Example-M16. Almost useless. Jams more than a jam sandwich.

You do know that gun is probably older then you right? Its the infantrymen's rifle. Made to be mass-produced and semi-reliable. 'Cause lets face it. Outfitting the meat shield in nice stuff doesn't really help.

That said, didn't a british sub crash into a french one? Good luck getting across the atlantic if you can't steer clear of another fucking sub.


That said. The U.S operates 18 nuclear-armed submarines.

That said, isrealis are more nuclear strapped then you cheeky britishmen.

Don't american soldiers keep shooting each other and keep shooting down their own jets and stuff. Biggest danger in Iraq has always been American friendly fire. And yes, the M16 is older than me, but that doesnt change the fact its useless. The best weapons were the ones from ww2. e.g the lee enfield rifle. That saw nearly 70 years of service with the british army and was one of the greatest infantry weapons ever made.
And if you consider your infantry as a meat shield, you dont stand a chance in any war. If used properly, an infantry platoon can do more damage than a brigade of tanks. Assassinations and sabotage etc.
But hey, America vs Britain=not likely to happen. We are the best of friends so lets concentrate on the true enemies. The Communists and left wingers.

 

[Bulletinmybrain]

We don't

Anyone could be invaded, but we all know that any full scale war in the future will be nuclear. Our submarine based nuclear detterant is capable of destroying any location we choose on this planet, and America, if you launched on us, we could have the entire eastern seaboard wiped from existence within three minutes and still have time for that last cup of tea before we all died. We also have the best trained troops in the world and some of the best equipped. And the SAS, who could forget those guys. Go England.

riight.....i think our anti-icbm systems would shoot your missles out of the sky b4 they even hit.

and america has the best gear for their soliders.
after all, most of the tech your using came FROM US.

and some people call americans arrogant, i guess briatin his some guys with their heads up their asses

The only warning you would have of a british nuclear strike would be washington dc dissappearing in a mushroom cloud and they don't use ICBMs'. our submarines are almost undetectable. There could even be one aimed at dc or new york right now and you'd never know. True your retaliation would wipe us off the map. and remember, it only takes one to get through the almost non-existant missile defence systems.
And i think you will find, most of our small arms come are designed by chzech companies, most of our aircraft are either english or joint european design and lets face it, american equipment may be advanced, but its hardly reliable. Example-M16. Almost useless. Jams more than a jam sandwich.

You do know that gun is probably older then you right? Its the infantrymen's rifle. Made to be mass-produced and semi-reliable. 'Cause lets face it. Outfitting the meat shield in nice stuff doesn't really help.

That said, didn't a british sub crash into a french one? Good luck getting across the atlantic if you can't steer clear of another fucking sub.


That said. The U.S operates 18 nuclear-armed submarines.

That said, isrealis are more nuclear strapped then you cheeky britishmen.

Don't american soldiers keep shooting each other and keep shooting down their own jets and stuff. Biggest danger in Iraq has always been American friendly fire. And yes, the M16 is older than me, but that doesnt change the fact its useless. The best weapons were the ones from ww2. e.g the lee enfield rifle. That saw nearly 70 years of service with the british army and was one of the greatest infantry weapons ever made.
And if you consider your infantry as a meat shield, you dont stand a chance in any war. If used properly, an infantry platoon can do more damage than a brigade of tanks. Assassinations and sabotage etc.
But hey, America vs Britain=not likely to happen. We are the best of friends so lets concentrate on the true enemies. The Communists and left wingers.

1. That goes to show how awesome we are. The only real threat to us is ourself. For example in the invasion of iraq, or gulf war... Only one tank operator died, and that was because it was hit three times by friendly fire.

2.) So? It fires bullets. It kills things.

3.) Infantry cause much less colateral damage, and they are more mobile. Any planned attack always use mechanized back-up. Why? Because they are bloody useful in those situations.