A 1935 US Plan for Invasion of Canada

[Drake Tungsten]

And given that you haven't fought a large industrialised country in 60 years I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume that an invasion of the UK would be a cakewalk.

Who's talking about an invasion? I'd hope that they'd get the point and surrender once we bombed them back into the Stone Age...

[Kontiki]

I doubt the US would seek to occupy Britain in any realistic scenario, though. Just neutralize and isolate it.

Maybe one of the more interesting questions around this hypothetical is NATO generally and the rest of western Europe specifically. What do they do?

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah, we might actually need Canada if the EU decided to throw in with the Brits.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Well considring the OP gives credit to the Canadians for burning the WH when in fact it was the British

Some Brits, some Canadian militia.

Local militia you mean, members of the realm.

[KrazyHorse]

I find it difficult to imagine objectives which large scale bombing of the UK is both necessary and sufficient to achieve.

[Drake Tungsten]

Just let them have it, Ogie...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I doubt the US would seek to occupy Britain in any realistic scenario, though. Just neutralize and isolate it.

Maybe one of the more interesting questions around this hypothetical is NATO generally and the rest of western Europe specifically. What do they do?

It would depend on what triggered the war, which no one has yet specified.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Local militia you mean, members of the realm.

And? Our ancestors. Different from foreign troops.

[Drake Tungsten]

I find it difficult to imagine objectives which large scale bombing of the UK is both necessary and sufficient to achieve.

I find it difficult to imagine scenarios in which the US and UK would go to war. Or scenarios in which invading the UK wouldn't lead to an unacceptable risk of nuclear war. What's your point?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I find it difficult to imagine objectives which large scale bombing of the UK is both necessary and sufficient to achieve.

To get WMDs out of the hands of the new Finsbury Park Mosque govt of Britain, a land invasion or blockade being made difficult by the support for Finsbury from Eurabia, Red China, and Putins neo-soviet empire.

Or maybe when the space lizards land.

[KrazyHorse]

My point is that even in a scenario where the UK and US found themselves at war, the dispute would most likely be over some 3rd party territory issue which could be resolved by the US blockading the UK and putting troops down in the disputed area.

Beyond that, we have to assume that the US would be interested in changing the government of the UK, which would be unlikely to happen through mere bombing.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And? Our ancestors. Different from foreign troops.

some of the brit regulars are probably your ancestors. Given 19th c migration patterns, some of the US defenders are probably also your ancestors, and some of the brit regulars are probably our ancestors (well not MY ancestors, the only UK ancestry Ive got was a great grandpa who spent a few years in Lancaster,England in between Lithuania and Philadelphia)

[Arrian]

Sure, but our government might very well *think* that bombing would serve that end

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

US defenders

[Drake Tungsten]

Beyond that, we have to assume that the US would be interested in changing the government of the UK, which would be unlikely to happen through mere bombing.

Agreed. I brought up bombing mainly because I believe it's the farthest the US would be likely to go in a war against the UK.