Darkling said:Britain invaded Maine during the war of 1812 and gave strong indications they were going to annex it, New England didn't how much interest.
This was one of main reason Maine became its own state, they were very annoyed that Massachusetts didn't send help.
On the issue of why war breaks out, I can't see how it can be both.
Timmy811 said:What was the population of Britain in 1838?
The US 1840 census is 17 million, so in 1838 it was just over 16 million.
England had a population of 14.86 million in 1841 but I can't find the population for the rest of the UK. So population of the UK and Canada in 1838 = 20 million?
Given that the British have commitments all over the world I don't think they would be able to signifigantly outnumber American forces.
Ghost 88 said:Child I am not a school kid and have spent Twice as long as you have been alive studying American military history. Those cliches are actually fact as I try to make a point of only using arguements base on facts. Now Darkling has argued using facts. You however use your biased bullshit.All you have contributed to any arguement for at least the last week is Anti US propaganda Backed by Bullshit. So do me a favor add me to your Kill file so I don't have to listen to your crap.
Ian sorry I am just feed up with this persons bullshit.
Darkling said:US population 1837: 15,843,000
Ghost 88 said:On the two battles I was responding to the statement that the UK had beaten the US best which was not the case almost without exception the US generals that were routed by the Brits were not worthy of the tittle General..
I am not sure your shooting point is relevant - it only applied to light infantry really.Ghost 88 said:As for regulars always being better than Militia that is so much bull. NO was Militia beating Regulars,Scots campaign in Mexico was largely Militia beating Regulars,Viet Nam was militia vs.regulars, and the First Afghan war was Militia Massacreeing a Army of Regulars. Issandanwhana(sp) was Militia vs mostly Regulars. Cowpens and Kings mountian same. So no regulars are not automaticly better than millitia.
The British do win that war, and indeed many,many others in the nineteenth century.Ghost 88 said:means suppling Vanncover by sea which the UK did not have to do in India.
Screw up officers. Might be ahead of my self on this one as the brilliant team of Raglin,Lucan,and Cardigan was 17 years in the future, had understood these three were the culmination of years of mediocraty in the Royal Army. Yes I'm aware Wellington is still around but was he capable of taking a field command.
67th Tigers said:Including Slaves and Indians. Whats the free white population?
Imajin said:WW2 - Present - Absent massive PODs, a war is ASB, but would be an American walkover. We could probably defeat the UK even with massive otehr committments if we really put the effort into it, and America is not threatened. Britain has alot less to lose though- Canada fighting the US in such a scenario is even more ASB.
Timmy811 said:They're not just going to be invading Maine. Fighting would also rage along the borders of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Michigan.
Also the domestic political situation had changed greatly since 1812. Since the first post posits that war broke out over the cumulation of diplomatic breakdowns on multiple fronts including the annexation of Texas, the Maine border and the Oregon territory. The North would definitly be as much in the fight as the south.
Johnnyreb said:As for the Brits, I find certain people's anti-Americanism very tiresome. There seems to be a race memory of Americans being over in Britain with cigarettes, nylons, chewing-gum and chocolate, over-sexed and over here, but its got to be about two generations since that happened. They may be rash and brash, but they're also very friendly and hospitable. Heavens to Betsy, they're not socialist, but they are very, very democratic - they even elect their Chief Librarians. Besides, it's their country and they're entitled to be capitalist if they want.
Darkling said:Nukes make such a war a disaster for both nations, even if the US does destroy the UK they would be left with the economic and military might of Mexico (if that).
Even without nukes, the presence of air defences and the limitations of quantity and quality of aircraft that the carrier fleet can deploy also raise serious doubts about whether the US can overwhelm the UK.
DoleScum said:Given that the UK's 'independent' nuclear deterrent is bought from, maintained by, and used in 'cooperation' with (ie with the permission of), the US the idea of a trident being dropped on Washington is laughable.
Given the unhealthy, sycophantic attitude of the present British Government, were the US to drop a few nukes on the UK, our response would probably be limited to posting a note to Washington with "Thank you sir may we have another" written on it.
MerryPrankster said:At what point in British history do we stop getting excellent Napoleonic War generals like Wellington and monstrous imbeciles like Lord Cardigan?
If an incompetent Brit is in charge when war breaks out, things could go very badly for them.
Also, could Halifax be taken by surprise naval attack before the RN can get into the area to prevent such a thing from happening?
DoleScum said:Given that the UK's 'independent' nuclear deterrent is bought from, maintained by, and used in 'cooperation' with (ie with the permission of), the US the idea of a trident being dropped on Washington is laughable.
Given the unhealthy, sycophantic attitude of the present British Government, were the US to drop a few nukes on the UK, our response would probably be limited to posting a note to Washington with "Thank you sir may we have another" written on it.
MerryPrankster said:If an incompetent Brit is in charge when war breaks out, things could go very badly for them.
Also, could Halifax be taken by surprise naval attack before the RN can get into the area to prevent such a thing from happening?