Hperthetical (Uk vs Iraq)

[Barley]

Could the UK mount a successful lone invasion of Iraq with a) the 35,000 men it aleready has in theatre, if not b) if we geared up to wholesale a unilateral offensive. Would you think UK has the military might to succeed in such an operation?

[Paul Hanson]

No. We simply don't have the power projection capabilities to mount a successful lone invasion of Iraq.

[TheStinger]

It would take about 3 years to build up enough forces and men to do it form the base we have.

ONTOH the UK forces could proably defend Kuwait from any Iraqi attack

[Urban Ranger]

Probably not. A more interesting question is, could the US invade the UK successfully given that the US goes all out and that nobody else is involved?

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Probably not. A more interesting question is, could the US invade the UK successfully given that the US goes all out and that nobody else is involved?

It could do it but the casualties would make Vitenam look like a holiday.

[Solly]

We should just nuke em.

[Paul Hanson]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Probably not. A more interesting question is, could the US invade the UK successfully given that the US goes all out and that nobody else is involved?

They'd win eventually, but they'd give the term "Phyrric victory" a whole new meaning in the process.

[SpencerH]

You have to decide what the objective of the war would be in order to answer the question.

Could 35K troops 'conquer' and hold Iraq. No

Could 35K professional troops kick butt against waves of Iraqi amateurs? The British empire was built on just that superiority and the Falklands and Desert storm re-iterated that point. So a short term engagement to achieve a specific objective such as driving Iraqi troops in the south back to Baghdad. Yes.

Two factors would decide a conventional war. Could the UK maintain air superiority without losing too many aircraft? Could the UK keep their forces supplied for enough time to achieve their objectives?

[CerberusIV]

No, the UK forces could win battles but not a protracted war.

The UK armed forces were largely changed from a global to a european capability in the 80's and early 90's so the infrastructure and numbers to conquer a country like Iraq simply don't exist.

The new carriers just ordered for the Royal Navy may mark the start of a reversal of that trend but it is too early to say. There probably isn't the money for a significant global capability anyway. Only the US has the economic muscle to support that kind of capability at present.

It is usually easier to defend than attack though, especially given similar levels of military technology (which the Iraqis don't have).

[monolith94]

Based on the film "The Full monty" I have concluded that all British people are fat lamers, and that we could therefore invade successfully.

However "lock stock and two smocking barrels" seems to indicate that there are some violent people in the UK - we might lose a few dozen soldiers, I guess.

[Paul Hanson]

You might not have too much trouble taking England and Wales, but if you've seen "Braveheart" you ought to be aware that Scotland wouldn't be a pushover.

[monolith94]

We don't want scotland anyway... Bunch a dress wearin haggis eatin bagpipe playin fools! We could team up with them actually, to free them from english oppression!

[Paul Hanson]

Originally posted by monolith94
We don't want scotland anyway... Bunch a dress wearin haggis eatin bagpipe playin fools!

Try going to Scotland and saying that. Go on, I dare ya...

[monolith94]

There are plenty of places in Scotland with no Scottish people in listening distance so yes, ok, I will...
[/point taken]

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by monolith94
Based on the film "The Full monty" I have concluded that all British people are fat lamers, and that we could therefore invade successfully.

How ironic, a citizen of the fatest country in the world calling the brits fat.