GeneValgene
Diamond Member
israel has some sick military technology, which the US employs
with that said, UK would probably still win because of resources
with that said, UK would probably still win because of resources
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
In a war, who would win
Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
ok, Israel has probably the best pilots in the world, sorry :roll:
The fact is, that your claim that the UK has the best pilots in the world is probably somewhat misguided.
You make a bunch of assumptions you make on friendly fire, including the American psyche (WTF?) With the volume of United States forces that have been mobilized since the end of World War II, there will be MUCH MORE potential for error by its armed forces. We've sent many more times the number of armed forces that other countries have sent, and therefore we have made more mistakes.
You do realize that the World War II era doesn't say anything about the currents state of affairs? the US certainly didn't have a military budget similar to what it is now, which started during the Cold War era.
IAteYourMother
Lifer
why? because the United States has a ridiculous amount of global clout? I'm just stating the obvious, sorry you can't seem to deal with it :roll:
IAteYourMother
Lifer
I'm pretty sure nearly all Israelis are Jews... we're not saying Jews are Israelis
Most of the debate here is purely emotional, and non fact based. Most of the people here answered to the question "who would you like to win in a war between Israel and Britain?" rather than answering the original question.
When the cold fact is that Israel has beaten more than once several countries bigger and richer than itself.
Another thing that you forgot, is that our (US) nukes were developed mostly by Jewish scientist if you remember the Manhattan Project. I find it hard to believe Israel didn't 'acquire' all of our atomic knowledge very fast, which would mean Israel has gone nuclear even before the brits did, and thus I wouldn't underestimate Israel's nuclear capabilities too fast.
When the cold fact is that Israel has beaten more than once several countries bigger and richer than itself.
Another thing that you forgot, is that our (US) nukes were developed mostly by Jewish scientist if you remember the Manhattan Project. I find it hard to believe Israel didn't 'acquire' all of our atomic knowledge very fast, which would mean Israel has gone nuclear even before the brits did, and thus I wouldn't underestimate Israel's nuclear capabilities too fast.
...and the US has developed outstanding technology. I find it ironic that when the $h{+ begins to fly, people begin to look towards the US for assistance. Not only do we supply military defense, but we provide aid to the countries affected.
In a lot of ways, I believe the US has the right to tell much of the world to kiss our....nevermind. We do not always want to be the police of the world, but at the same time, we are often asked to be.
If the US was completely arrogant, we would have already turned Iraq and several other countries to glass.
imported_Phil
Diamond Member
No, because of that, jackass.
Cipherfaction
Member
lol id think britian
sweetpea70512
Member
I'll go with Great Britain.
The U.S. would side with them against Isreal with the understanding that the battle plan is to bomb the piss out of Isreal, turn the sand to glass, and put gas stations all over the country.The Isrealis can pump our gas for a change.😀
The U.S. would side with them against Isreal with the understanding that the battle plan is to bomb the piss out of Isreal, turn the sand to glass, and put gas stations all over the country.The Isrealis can pump our gas for a change.😀
IAteYourMother
Lifer
i said the United States' tool... no where am I saying we're better than anyone else, but face it, your country was pressured into going into Iraq against tremendous anti-war sentiment in your own country because of the United States' clout. In addition, they have insane influence in the United Nations. Please, even a large part of your own country thinks that Blair was acting as a pawn of Bush.
I'm sorry if you can't handle bluntness
IronWing
No Lifer
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not, um, oh boy, I will not start a parody thread.
Nope, won't do it, really.
By the way, in a war, who would win, UPS or the U.S. Post Office?
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not start a parody thread.
I will not, um, oh boy, I will not start a parody thread.
Nope, won't do it, really.
By the way, in a war, who would win, UPS or the U.S. Post Office?
Finalnight
Golden Member
Britain in 45 days using conventional weapons.
US would just sanction both and stand aside.
US would just sanction both and stand aside.
imported_Phil
Diamond Member
Did your mother drop you on your head as a baby?
^ There. That bit. That sentence. Arrogance.
See it now?
IAteYourMother
Lifer
umm, are you stupid? Read what I said. The United States has immense political influence through its ridiculous economic aid it supplies to other countries. Or are you too stupid to distinguish fact from arrogance?
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
Dude, the 6 day war was against a bunch of poorly trained Arab rabble with no airforce or navy to speak off, and with incompetent generals. And whatever piddly airforce they did have was wiped out by a pre-emptive strike on day 1 leaving Israel with total air superioty. The British would be a slightly different story. They have one of the best trained armies in the world, if not the best. Plus a very potent airforce and navy to support them. And the best trained special ops in the world. Without America backing up Israel as they currently do, I'd say the Brits would have the edge.
And that's not even including the fact that the Brits have far more allies and a far larger economy (20 times the size).
Israel knows how to fight, but has jack for force projection capabilities outside the range of the IAF. The Brits, however, have focused on force projection for many a century.
Advantage: Britain.
The IDF as a whole is organized and equipped to fight a uniquely middle eastern war - the same war that we're finding that our present military isn't equipped, organized and trained for. They only have limited capabilities to attack hard targets, and you'll find a LOT of those in Britain. The British, on the other hand, are highly equipped to handle hard targets, and you'll find a lot of those in Israel.
Advantage: Britain.
And then you have to consider that Britain is an island nation. Taking over by way of airlift is virtually impossible, so we can completely rule that out. So you need ships. Lots of them. And then you have to consider that Israel, for all intents and purposes, is a landlocked nation. The Mediterranean is practically enclosed - any invasion force would have to exit it via the suez canal or straights of gibralter, which would be easily blockaded by the RAF and Royal Navy.
Advantage: Britain.
The only other option for Israel to get conquering forces into the UK would be to battle overland to secure places to build an invasion force without having them blocked in... There are essentially 3 routes they could take. The first would be to press a front towards the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean... Directly into the heart of their traditional enemies, whereupon they would become involved in two wars. The second would be to skirt the Med to the south until reaching the Atlantic. Egypt and Lybia would have some pretty nasty things to say about that. The third route takes them along the north of the Med into France. World War III, anybody?
Advantage: Britain.
And then you have to consider the political alliances of the superpowers... The US, Russia, and China are all tied MUCH more strongly to a first world nation such as Britain than to a new, second-world nation with a history pockmarked with explosions and the only significant historical dates for a thousand years being wars.
Advantage: Britain.
Advantage: Britain.
The IDF as a whole is organized and equipped to fight a uniquely middle eastern war - the same war that we're finding that our present military isn't equipped, organized and trained for. They only have limited capabilities to attack hard targets, and you'll find a LOT of those in Britain. The British, on the other hand, are highly equipped to handle hard targets, and you'll find a lot of those in Israel.
Advantage: Britain.
And then you have to consider that Britain is an island nation. Taking over by way of airlift is virtually impossible, so we can completely rule that out. So you need ships. Lots of them. And then you have to consider that Israel, for all intents and purposes, is a landlocked nation. The Mediterranean is practically enclosed - any invasion force would have to exit it via the suez canal or straights of gibralter, which would be easily blockaded by the RAF and Royal Navy.
Advantage: Britain.
The only other option for Israel to get conquering forces into the UK would be to battle overland to secure places to build an invasion force without having them blocked in... There are essentially 3 routes they could take. The first would be to press a front towards the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean... Directly into the heart of their traditional enemies, whereupon they would become involved in two wars. The second would be to skirt the Med to the south until reaching the Atlantic. Egypt and Lybia would have some pretty nasty things to say about that. The third route takes them along the north of the Med into France. World War III, anybody?
Advantage: Britain.
And then you have to consider the political alliances of the superpowers... The US, Russia, and China are all tied MUCH more strongly to a first world nation such as Britain than to a new, second-world nation with a history pockmarked with explosions and the only significant historical dates for a thousand years being wars.
Advantage: Britain.
SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
If the two armies were to be put head-to-head, in one piece of land, I'd say the IDF would make mince meat of the Brits in few days.
But as the IDF has no naval mobilisation means, it's a tough call.
Anyway, just to set two facts straight:
1) Israel must be the country with the largest reliance on inteliigence for security. The entire concept behind the Israeli army is a quick, deadly, preemptive attack when the intent of the other side comes up, BEFORE official war breaks out.
In fact, according to foreign reports, Israel's intelligence abilities far exceed those of the NSA, or any other espionage body, FWIW.
2) Israel has the Shavit missile, that was used to launch a sattelite to orbit a few years ago. Experts estimate that the Shavit is essentially an ICBM with the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead up to 7000km away. That very well covers Britain.
Anyway, lacking a real navy and carriers, Israel does not have any way of attacking on British land using convetional means, while Britain doesn't have enough Naval power to play the game on Israeli land. So there.
But as the IDF has no naval mobilisation means, it's a tough call.
Anyway, just to set two facts straight:
1) Israel must be the country with the largest reliance on inteliigence for security. The entire concept behind the Israeli army is a quick, deadly, preemptive attack when the intent of the other side comes up, BEFORE official war breaks out.
In fact, according to foreign reports, Israel's intelligence abilities far exceed those of the NSA, or any other espionage body, FWIW.
2) Israel has the Shavit missile, that was used to launch a sattelite to orbit a few years ago. Experts estimate that the Shavit is essentially an ICBM with the ability to deliver a nuclear warhead up to 7000km away. That very well covers Britain.
Anyway, lacking a real navy and carriers, Israel does not have any way of attacking on British land using convetional means, while Britain doesn't have enough Naval power to play the game on Israeli land. So there.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
