King Charles of Canada makes a rare public speech calling for aid from the Commonwealth to support Europe in defending against the US. It’s broadcast on Canadian TV.

Who do you join? The US or the UK?

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    2·
    11 months ago

    I am much more suited to snarky online comments than actual combat.

    Gun to my head, have to choose a side for which to fight? Probably the UK, I trust it more than the US.

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        3·
        11 months ago

        I wonder about that. On the face of it, yes they ought to. But a couple of thoughts might tip the scale:

        • an offensive war is much harder than a defensive one.
        • America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines .
        • America has a low tolerance for casualties, especially in foreign lands. Whereas Europe defending itself would probably be more tolerant. (Except for France. For French reasons.)
        • Such an invasion would cause huge social unrest at home. Presumably such an invasion would be instigated by trump who would then be compelled to deploy the military at home as well.

        And while I can’t vouch for the source, in a few categories the two actually seem relatively evenly matched: https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_European_Union_EU_vs_USA

        I also wonder how much air superiority the US would really have. Assuming other countries weren’t letting the US use their air bases, they’d have to project air power from their carriers. Google seems to think about 64 fighters per carrier, as the US only has 20 carriers, which gives it an effective air fleet of about 1,300 aircraft compared to Europe’s 5000.

        • Nouveau_Burnswick@lemmy.world
          1·
          11 months ago
          • an offensive war is much harder than a defensive one.

          Agreed

          • America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines.

          True, but America already maintains these, even without ongoing conflicts. If they moved carrier groups from the Pacific, even easier.

          • America has a low tolerance for casualties, especially in foreign lands.

          I don’t think so. They seem pretty okay with casualties in every war since Vietnam. Compounded with the likelihood most casualties wouldn’t be extracted to the US until the end of a major conflict, it gets even easier.

          • Such an invasion would cause huge social unrest at home. Presumably such an invasion would be instigated by trump who would then be compelled to deploy the military at home as well.

          Sadly, this could legally work. The USA military is beholden to the president over anyone else. So long as an action isn’t unconstitutional, it’s legal if it comes from POTUS.

          • Lauchs@lemmy.world
            2·
            11 months ago

            America would have to maintain gigantic transoceanic supply lines.

            Those supply lines aren’t subject to attack though. They’d have to defend them against submarine attacks across thousands and thousands of kilometers. In that sort of fight, advantage to the attacker.

            They seem pretty okay with casualties in every war since Vietnam.

            Not in the numbers required for a ground war in Europe. America lost some 7,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and its been considered a major debacle. Consider the number of casualties in Ukraine…

            The USA military is beholden to the president over anyone else.

            Oh, probably legal. Buy there would be massive protests, maybe riots etc. It would be a huge internal headache and distraction.