Planning on starting a world war? I only ask because this navy isn't necessary for any country to defend itself from attacks or invasions by other nations. Even the United States doesn't require the Navy we have if we're only dedicated to defending the United States from attacks and invasions. We could reduce our nuclear carrier fleets to about four with two fleets in the Atlantic and two fleets in the Pacific and mothball the rest. Not a single nation, or even an alliance of nations, actually presents any current threat to the United States. I can't think of even one nation that is actually an enemy of the United States that plans on attacking the United States and that includes N Korea that has no interests in starting a war with the US. A military should be based upon a rational assessment of the possible threat to the nation and not based upon some theoretical BS used to justify building a bigger and bigger military force. A nations military should never be used to project political influence upon other nations as that violates the independent sovereignty of those nations. International political influence is based upon diplomacy and is never based upon the use of military force. When military force is used the influence is really a delusion.
The size of the military for a nation needs to be based upon a pragmatic necessity. Anything in excess of this is a waste of the wealth of the nation. By way of example, Japan did not attack the United States in WW II with any intention of actually invading the United States. The American People are too well armed for any nation to actually invade the United States. Japan attacked the United States with the intension of preventing the United States from becoming involved in the other Japanese military invasions and conquests that they had planned for at least long enough so that these invasions and conquests could be solidified. The Japanese were trying to "buy" up to two years where they would be unopposed in the Western Pacific. They would have basically been successful if the US carrier fleet would have been at anchor in Pearl Harbor but it wasn't.
England didn't have the largest fleet in the world the British Empire did, it was made up of Canadian, Australian and other navies, which were still part of the British Empire for defence. The British Empire had the largest fleet in the world for along time before WW1 and it didn't start a naval arms race, it's when people like Germany want to challenge that naval power you have a problem. Like China now, it is forcing Japan, Tiawan, Philippines and Australia to improve their capabilities, so China's the problem not the US which does things because of treaties, the same with the British Empire having a large fleet to defend the colonies. Pre WW2 if the UK and US had joined forces against Japan they would have had more carriers and a larger fleet, but they didn't do this allowing Japan to get between it's enemies and defeat them one at time. I don't see a number of countries joining this South American alliance, Chile is a UK ally and Columbia joining a alliance with Veneuela I don't think so. There is also the Commonwealth nations like Guyana and the Caribbean members that wouldn't support this alliance. Even NATO had some countries that weren't members like France, Ireland, Austria and Switzerland. Yeah increasing things like mines, air strike and missiles, but they aren't really much use after 300 miles, they would also need to increase their submarines and fast attack boats, but I wouldn't go anywhere near their coastline, I would sit back and hit them with cruise missiles, they would do the same thing but they don't have air fields as well defended as I do. Africa does things on a regional level, so their could be some working regional alliances, but an African alliance no chance. I don't see Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt argeeing. While I see your point on former US navy ships being sold, the UK would also be looking to sell off it's ships that are no longer needed, like the Type 23's, Minesweepers, helicopter carriers and air craft, I see a huge export market for not only former US, but also former UK assets. I don't see the point in buying 3 carriers as at most only 2 would be operational, I would have 4 carrier groups operational and they wouldn't have to worry about fuel. In a war I would win even if they bought up the whole US reserve fleet.
The US has 4 carriers operational as anyone time, to keep this up while other carriers are being refueled or refitted they need 10 carriers, so you thinking the US doesn't need 10 carriers to support 4 operational is wrong. Of course the US could cut the number of air craft carriers, but then I would have to build more America class amphibious assault ships, which still need destroyers, cruisers, frigates and submarines to defend them.
Actually most of that was kicked off becaue after that little Family Feud that was known as "The Great War" was done, Germany and other major European powers either no longer existed, or were greatly weakened. So the countries that normally would have helped offset a UK fleet no lnger existed. So this became a threat to Japan (who the UK could have concentrated on, no longer having Imperial Germany or Russia to tie up a lot of ships), which annouced a large increase in their fleets. But if you notice, Taiwan and the Philippines are not trying to match China's building, just have enough to tie them up while the US comes to help. They know that they do have to build their own carriers and cruisers, just have enough to provide a buffer to slow them down. But if China continues at this pace, new bases in the Philippines (or even a return to formal recognistion and a base on Taiwan) might be considered. Would not have happened. In fact, at that time the US was actually woried about a joint UK-Japanese attack on US territory. Do not forget, during World War I Japan was an Allied nation, and long had ties to the UK. And at that time, the carrier was still largely an experimental vessel. The Battleship was still the king of battle. It was only because of the Washington and London Naval Treaties that Japan started to concentrate more on carriers (and took that development farther then any other nation of the time). I do not care about Venezuela. They are a yapping dog that most really do not pay any attention to. I would be more worried about Brazil and Argentina. And do not be to sure about an alliance not happening. Argentina had almost gone to war with several of her neighbors in the 1960's and 1970's, but the major players in that region still got together to one degree or another during the Falklands incident. Because a nation may or may not be a nominal ally, that fleet would be a definate threat, one they could not ignore. Really? Mines could be delivered by C-130s, far in advance of your fleet. And fleets move at a crawl when they have to sweep for mines (and still often miss some). Throw some mines in front to slow them down, then hit with long range aircraft and missiles. Rinse and repeat as needed. How long can they keep this up until the fleet is running low on missiles? Anti-ship missiles are pretty inexpensive, and really tie up critical resources of the fleet. And you also have corvettes (think modern PT boats), which are cheap and because of their small size are hard to detect. A smart Admiral could have that fleet being pulled in 3 or 4 directions at once, unsure where the next or real attack is coming from. You are seeing the issue form the eyes of an Empire, not from a former Colony. Remember, all of these nations were formerly colonies of European powers (specifically the UK). And most would rather die then see a rebirth of the British Empire come down and try to subdjicate them again. Most would see this fleet as a real and serious threat, and while they might do it individually, they would increase their capabilities if nothing else to make them a harder target and encourage an attack on their neighbor instead. And once again, set these ships side by side, and see which would be more desired. Type 23, 32 air defense missiles, 8 Harpoon missiles. Arleigh Burke, 90-96 missiles, from air defense and anti-ballistic to Harpoon and Tomahak cruise missiles. Plus 6 torpedo launchers Yea, I am sure some will want those Type 23s, especially the smaller nations that can't addord as big of a navy. But Brazil and Argentina, would want larger ships (imagine a General Belgrano II as a Ticonderoga class guided missile cruiser). Remember, most of the nations in the Southern Hemisphere are former colonies. And for most of them, large European navies make them very nervous. And many have been the target of those navies in the past. After all, the first UK presence on the Falklands was to take it from Argentina and use as a base to launch an attack against Buenos Aires. Neither they, nor the other countries nearby have forgotten this.
It wasn't a family war, the arms race maybe was about family prestige and you had other actors the British Neo Cons like Churchill then first sea Lord and a useless military commander at that time. The was itself starting with a war between Austria and Russia, then spread to their alliances. I am sure you know all this. The Russians were never a threat to British navel power, the Germans in Europe were, so the British just moved more ships to Europe. The colonial war of WW1 was a total British victory with some help from Japan and France. Why would the UK want to Japan we had territories from the Ottoman and German empire, Japan was a small island with almost no resources. The British were very good at small and medium sized colonial war, but major land war against other major power we couldn't do. The US isn't going to be let back into the Philippines and their former base is no longer their, and the US a former colonial power that did very bad things in the Philippines. The Philippines is growing at a good rate and will soon have enough money to defend itself with new jets and ships, I feel they should be improving their marines and amphibious capability and having a larger more powerful air force ahead of a better navy. If the US was going recognise Tiawan it would have done it already. So the Americans really thought the British Empire would help Japan against a English speaking nation, not a chance. Have you heard the things the British monarchy said about the Japanese insulting them all the time, and the British troops didn't really like them after they shot a British soldier in "friendly fire". I am sure that alliance wouldn't happen, of course Brazil and Argentina could join together, but they aren't partners they are just trying to get more power than each other. So the UK is allied with Chile, yet Chile see's my navy as a threat? I don't think Chile would, it would see Argentina and Brazilian alliance as the threat. Why would I send ships after their ships when I have a carrier with 120 aircraft? I would send a few jets to fire a few missiles at it, but the battle group would stay in formation. I would be sending my minesweepers in ahead of the battle groups to clear the mines, if I have 4 of them working together it shouldn't take to long to clear the mines and my fleet wouldn't get trapped. Those 60,000 ton fleet replenishment ships could carry a lot of armament, so I could last longer than everybody else. That's the best thing about my fleet it's replenishment ships, it meaning it's far more capable than the US fleet. Hahaha, I guess your right South Africa and Nigeria would build up their military capabilities just so other countries as attacked. It's rather stupid as once I get a foothold somewhere I would be in a much better position to attack the Major powers. Of course the main problem with doing anything in west Africa is the French, not Nigeria, if I get back from the French to support some English speaking independence movements in Nigeria or Cameroon, I would do it. I would also be a support of Boer independence from South Africa and as I said earlier a intervention in Zimbabwe. I would also support Hong Kong independence from China. I would go for the AB over the Type 23, but they should buy both if they want a balanced fleet. The Belgrano was sunk so I wouldn't call it that. I have talked to about 30 people from Argentina only one of them has said anything about the British trying to take Buenos Aires from the Spanish Empire and none of them said the Falklands was taken back as a point to invade Argentina from. The Falklands is and has been a vital British base with the Battle of the Falklands and Battle of River Plate being fought from it in some way.
Offhand, I would talk to the Chinese about buying bombers (the Chinese Xian H-6 is a clone of the Tu-16 Badger) and anti-ship cruise missiles...possibly copies of the hypersonic (Mach 5, 3000+MPH) Kh-15 (AS-16 "Kickback"), the Mach 3.5 KSR-5 (AS-6 "Kingfish"), the Mach 3 P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22 "Sunburn"), or the slower but near-impossible to intercept (flies at 5 meters, tiny radar cross-section, has jamming capability) C802 (CSS-N-8 "Saccade"). Offhand, I would expect an H-6 could carry as many as a dozen Saccades, two Kingfish or Sun burns, or one Kickback. Note: one Kingfish--carrying 2000lbs of explosive at 2500MPH--could quite possibly sink even a supercarrier. The larger Kh-22 (AS-4 "Kitchen") is even more powerful, carrying 2200lbs of RDX, a fuel tank of hydrazine, and traveling at Mach 4.6 (3000+MPH). The Kitchen has a range of more than 500km, the Kingfish 700. Also buy a few SSK's (probably from Russia), arm them with Chinese clones of the Mk48 ADCAP torpedo. Start work on a crash program to develop a nuclear weapon that will fit on a cruise missile.
How many cruise missile hits do you figure a minesweeper will survive? I would guess one...maybe. From the South American coast, a Badger (combat radius: 2000 miles) carrying long-range anti-ship missiles can hit the coast of Africa with them! Every incoming missile requires at least two (and usually more) missiles fired in response. Of course, the replenishment ships would be high-priority targets! I would have you under constant harassment: have rotating Badgers doing bearing-only missile launches. Your fleet would have to go to full alert (firing up all radars, and giving my ELINT plane, circling at high altitude and a safe distance a clear picture of the fleet, as well as a precise location) for every missile...even if it's one missile. After the thirtieth alert, your sailors might be a bit weary...that would be when the first volley of 200 or so come in...say, a third big ones (AS-4's and -6's) coming in high and fast, and the rest smaller ones (Chinese Sunburns, Exocet clones), skimming the waves, running with all transmitters off and tracking on your own radar signals. One Kitchen or Kingfish or three or four smaller ones should take care of each replenishment ship...two hits, max, will take out a minesweeper. Even a single hit on a carrier will suspend flight operations for a while. (Also note that the AS-4 and AS-6 are all-weather missiles, able to be launched in any weather their launch aircraft can fly in...while I suspect intercepting a cruise missile in the teeth of a South Atlantic gale would be, at best, problematic.)
Why would Canada support this? We arn't your (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es anymore. The British will never ever rule the waves again get over yourself.
So the Harper government wouldn't support a greater British military inflence? This is my fleet, i've just said it would be the British fleet because that's what everybody thinks and I would building my fleet in the UK over a 3-5 year design and infastructure program and a 10-12 year build program. As war is moving to space the sea is a rather open place for attack, only submarines will stand a chance in the future, until then nothing beats a super carrier defending by submarines, cruisers, destroyers and frigates. I now realise I was stupid not to include frigates for the surface anti-submarine work and to take hits from missiles. You do know Britain never ruled the waves, the British Empire did. Canada has never been Britains B%t%h, you have just helped Britain loads, even when you get not credit for things like the Anglo-American-Canadian loan, you just get on with it. Where as some Americans always go on and on saying they saved Britain, when that was really Canada. So Canada is nobodies B%t%h!!!!!
Pitcairn Island does not have a harbor of any sort. It only has one spot on the whole island that even small boats can land
Plus almost nobody lives their and they wouldn't want a military base on their small island. The base would need to be built on one of the other islands.
Could they not just buy Badgers from Russia? The problem is my aircraft could reach out to 600 miles from the carrier with refueling, so would be able to defend my minesweepers and attack the Badgers before they fire their missiles. Also my minesweepers would have limited sort range anti-air missiles and CIWS, they would be taken down rather soon if any enemy air craft get through my air craft from the carriers. So your plan is rather good.
The Badgers would never be in range...just the missiles. The big AS-4 and -6 are easy enough to detect but are also incredibly fast, giving 20-30 seconds to intercept, maximum. The Sunburn is slower (subsonic), but is a sea-skimmer with active countermeasures and a tiny radar signature (especially against a rough sea). And again: these, at least the big ones, are all-weather missiles, and a Badger can take off in some pretty foul weather. (Russian weather being foul on a regular basis.) Last I checked, carriers cannot operate aircraft in the teeth of a storm! High wind also greatly affects the accuracy of a CIWS. I suspect an AS-4 wouldn't even need a direct hit to cripple a minesweeper...a near-miss would do it. That's a full ton of RDX (equal to about 3000lbs of TNT), and the not-insignificant factor that the AS-4 is propelled by an incredibly-explosive mixture mix of nitirc acid & hydrazine. I don't need to sink the minesweepers...all I need to do is disable the engines, the AA weapons, or the sweep gear to make the ship withdraw. The H-6's are modernized and improved over the Russian Tu-16's; though those are certainly an option...for spare parts, if nothing else.
From 300 miles away going at mach 4.5 it would take 35-40 seconds to reach the target. However my fighter aircraft without refueling could go out to 400 miles with it they could go to 600 miles, so the Badger could be found and shot down by my aircraft. If it was bad weather my minesweepers would go back to the CBG so wouldn't be under any real threat. Once the Carrier, replenishment ship with minesweepers on board are behind 4 cruisers with a total of 1,200 silos for upto 4,800 short-medium range air to air missiles and 8 destroyers with a total of 1,600 silos and upto 6,400 short-medium range missiles I don't think anything it getting past 11,200 missiles. Your plan could still work, but then you need to contend with the real threat my ablity to land 30,000 marines just about anywhere in the world and all their equipment, armour and supplies, plus my battle cruisers, littoral cruisers, destroyers, corvettes and attack submarines.
Oh really? Let's see, shall we? Who were the leaders of the nations involved? The UK, led by George V, grandson of Queen Victoria. Backed by Russia, Tzar Nicholas, himself a great-grandson of Queen Victoria. And the other side? Well, we have Wilhelm II, Kaiser of Germany. Grandson of Queen Victoria. And Emperor Charles I of Austria, married to Maria Josepha, cousin to King George. Most of the Royal Families of Europe had family ties to Queen Victoria. This includes the Queen of Greece, Queen of Norway, Queen of Romania, Queen of Spain, and others ranging from Princesses of Prussia and Waldeck, Prince of Germany, and Archdukes and other lesser nobility all through Europe. Sorry, this very much was a Family Feud. Basically the prodgeny of old Vicky trying to tear each other apart. I guess they had enough of her Little Wars, so decided to have themselves a Great War. Errr, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the US has been back in Subic Bay for almost a year now. Although technically listed as "semi-permanent" because of Philippine law, the base has now been a port call and had a constant detachment of Navy since June of last year. And with the rising tensions with China, they are asking for a more constant presense. And the US has recognized Taiwan in the past. Until President Carter in 1979 revoked the "Two China" policy, we did have formal recognition of the island nation. And if the tensions increase, I would not be surprised if a future President urged for a return to that policy. Do you really not know of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance? This was in effect for almost 20 years, and was the treaty that brought Japan into World War I on the side of the UK (even though it was sided also with her old enemy, Russia). During many major Naval Battles of that war, like the Battle of Jutland you had Japanese sailors aboard British vessels. They also had ships in the Med fighting on the side of the UK, as well as British sailors aboard Japanese vessels. Sorry, if you were not aware of all of this, you need to research naval history a bit more. That treaty essentially ended in 1921 though, when the UK did not renew the treaty after it lapsed. I talk to one almost daily, and she knows quite a bit about it. In fact, the Spanish inability to keep the British out of South America was one of the major causes leading to the series of revolts that lost them their former colonies on that Continent. But remember, you are looking at things from the point of view of a citizen of an Empire. From the side of people who are citizens of what was once a Colony of an Empire, it looks quite different. And I can't think of many that would want to return to that kind of situation ever again.
Yes but there was more to it than that, with all the countries getting involved. The main German aim was the defeat of France, which had nothing to do with victoria, France being a republic and all. It was about alliances and was on the cards for years. I remember reading a article about that, whoops. No I didn't know about the Anglo-Japanese alliance and I do need to do more research. This is why I enjoy talking with you, I learn about things then go and research them the best I can.
You are missing the point: you cannot run carrier operations in a storm! I launch one missile from maximum range...put it on a fighter (the Sunburn can be fighter-launched), launch, and boot the afterburners. Your entire fleet goes on alert & probably launches a dozen SAM's at it. Do it again an hour later. Then do it again. And again. And again. And again. And a few dozen more times. So now, your crews are jittery & exhausted, I know exactly where every ship in the fleet is, and you have probably used 250+ missiles. Now, send in a bunch of fighters from one direction & the Badgers from another. Fighters (the Mach 2 J-8 "Finback" and Russian Su-27 "Flanker") launch from one point, then boot afterburners and run, drawing off your air cover. Badgers launch from another...and your fighters have little chance to intercept the AS-4 and AS-6 missiles. (Both, especially the AS-4, can OUTRUN air-to-air missiles.) Maybe launch a few from a third bearing, those being old Exocet or AS-5 Kelt cruise missiles without warheads, carrying transponders to make them look like aircraft on the radar.
Not a problem, I admit I was surprised about it when I first learned about it myself. I first heard of this a few years ago when I was researching the "Rainbow Plans", the war plans drawn up in the 1920's and 1930's, on what to do if future wars broke out. Now there were many plans, but most important to this was War Plan Orange (a war against Japan), War Plan Red (a war against Great Britan), and War Plan Red-Orange (a war against the Anglo-Japanese Alliance). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/war-plan-red-orange.htm The Red-Orange plan was not scrapped until 1940, when the Red portion was deleted and Orange was updated. And interestingly enough, at the same time that Red-Orange and Red was dropped, Crimson (Canada), Scarlet (Australia), Emerald (Ireland), and Pink (all parts of the United Kingdom not covered under another plan, like the Caribbean) were all updated and contingency plans made as to how to implement them. This was not concieved of as an actual "invasion", but a way to quickly transfer political control of various parts of the UK, in the event the Royal Family was taken prisoner and attempts were made to influence the rest of the members. With a rapid execution of some or all of these plans, large areas like Canada could be brought under US control "for the duration of the war", then returned to UK control once it was completed. After all, if the US "invaded" and "took control" of Canada, Jamaica, and the other outlying areas, Germany would not be able to claim rule by conquest of Britan. And this was not the only similar plan. War Plan Black (war plan against Germany) had stated that if a victorious Germany tried to take control of French territories in the Caribbean, those would be invaded and taken over for the duration as well. And when France did fall and the Vichy government formed, they kept a close eye on French colonies like Guiana, prepared to invade if Germany tried to base troops or ships there. I always love reading old War Plans, because it is an interesting exercise in what might have been. Germany had war plans drawn up in the late 19th Century for the invasion of the US. And those war plans were updated several times after the Spanish-American War, with German plans to win control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, and even the Panama Canal after occupying the Eastern Seaboard. But this was largely scrapped in light of President Roosevelt and his expansion of the US military under the "Roosevelt Corollary" and his "Big Stick" policy. Basically, that corollary stated that the US was entitled to get involved if an empire from Europe tried to re-establish or expand it's colonial rule in the Western Hemisphere. It did not effect the status of current territories and colonies, but would not tolerate any new ones, or overthrow of current governments and having them "revert" back to colonies. I had often wondered what would have happened if President McKinley had not been assassinated. A Vice President Roosevelt would never have gotten most of those things passed, which would have left the doors open for the proposed German Invasion.
One would almost think you have read "Red Storm Rising", that is very much like an attack Tom Clancy described. And it is also very much like an attack I have proposed in the past to William Walker. The biggest problem with the air defense systems on UK ships is that they are fairly short range, and have very few missiles. Their Type 45 for example only has 48 missiles, with ranges from 2-120 km. Their Type 23 only has 32 short-range missiles (1-13 km). Then you have the (ugh) Type 26 "Global Combat Ship", with a whopping 24 air defense missiles, with a range of 50 km. The biggest single weakness of the Royal Navy is ironically the same weakness they had against Argentina 30 years ago, missile defense. They neither have enough of it, nor do they have long enough ranges. And they still lack a real AWACS aircraft, they just made do with much more limited helicopters or none at all. I can see a smart Admiral making the Royal Navy expend most of it's air defense missiles shooting down largely worthless drones and obsolete systems. Firing off stockpiles of old SY class Silkworms and Block 1 Exocets, just for the purpose of trying to exhaust or seriously depleat missile stockpiles and keeping the crews on edge. Then after 2 or 3 days of this, staging a real attack. This is one of the major reasons why when constructing my "dream fleet", you did not see any current or proposed Royal Navy ships in it. It is not from any feeling of superiority, I just think that the Royal Navy has it's head up it's Royal Arse when it comes to protecting their ships and fleets from missile attacks. And sadly, they are going to learn this lesson all over again if that does not change. You would have thought that one Falklands Fiasco would have been enough.
Many of us agree with you Mushroom, and I have sent emails to my MP, the MOD and people who control defence departments in government. However it makes not difference and little can be done about it. 90% of the mistakes were made in the early and mid 2000's by the Labour government and head of the navy back then, someone I have spoken about before called Lord Alan West, he was the captain of one of the ships that was sunk in the Falklands war. So if anybody was in a position to learn from those mistakes he was. There are others as well by he's the main one that anoys me. The problem is huge cost overruns and delays which mean the cost of the Type 45 has gone from £700-800 million to £1.1 billion, the Astute class submarine has gone from £700-800 million to £1.2 billion and the Queen Elizabeth class carriers have gone from £3-4 billion to £7-8 billion, there is also the Nimrod MRA4 maritime patrol aircraft that has those some cost overruns and delays but this was scrapped in the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security review, or in real terms cutting to get rid of debt review. The future navy 2020 was ment to have 3 medium carriers, 12 destroyers, 16 frigates and 8 attack submarine, the UK will have 2 medium carriers, 6 destroyer, 13 frigates and 7 attack submarines, the Royal Navy will be 25-30% smaller than it should be. To be frank our carriers are a pile of rubbish, I mean who build's 65,000 ton STOVL carriers, the destroyers are good just no fully equipped and they cost far to much, the Type 26 has some real advantages over the Type 23, it uses PAAMS, can fire Tomahawk and is bigger, but many of those advantages could be added to new build Type 23's, so I don't see the point in the Type 26. The Astute class submarines are very good, but they cost to much and 14 new Trafalgar's could be built for the same cost as 7 Astute's. For me the UK should be getting ships good enough and building more of them, rather can spend billions on new design and technology when AEGIS and the US cruisers are perfectly good. The only good thing I can see is the Tide class replenishment ships, still we are only getting 4 when we really need 6. I would think about the Astute class being in my "dream fleet" as it's just about as good as the Virginia class, but then Sea Wolf would be the best a hunting enemy submarines and the Virginia's would be better at land attack and information gathering, so I would have two classes of submarine. I also think the Bay class LSD's are good.
I knew about plan Red of a while, I watch a British documentary about it on youtube. They come up with the outcome of a draw with the US keeping Canada, but from what your saying the US wouldn't have kept Canada and just made it independent and got rid of the monarchy. Also I knew about most of the other plans, but for some reason didn't put it together, I just thought Japan was a threat to the US in the Pacific so they had a plan for it. I didn't know about the plan to invade the Ireland, which would have ment war with the British Empire and most of Europe, for the same reason the US didn't want European powers taking more territory in their region. What do you think of these plans which do you think would have been successful? Also if Germany had invaded the US, wouldn't the US have got alliance to help it against Germany?
The United States currently maintains the 2nd Fleet (N Atlantic), 3rd Fleet (Central/Eastern Pacific), 4th Fleet (Caribbean, and Central and South America waters), 5th Fleet (Arabian [Persian] Gulf area), 6th Fleet (Mediterranean), and 7th Fleet (Western Pacific, Indian Ocean and Arabian Gulf) each of which uses aircraft carriers and are rarely without them. These fleets are built around the aircraft carrier task force and in some cases there two carrier task forces assigned to a single fleet. To defend the United States we only require the 2nd Fleet (Central and Eastern Pacific) and the 3rd Fleet (North Atlantic) with one carrier task force at sea while the other is in port requiring only four carriers and all of the numerous other ships required for the task force. The balance of the fleets are basically assigned to offensive military actions around the world that have nothing to do with defending the United States from an attack or invasion. Remember one simple fact. Since WW II the United States military has not been used once to defend the United States from an invasion or attack by a foreign nation as none have occurred.
*sigh* Remember, we are now talking of early 20th Century. After almost 150 years of on and off warfare, the US and UK have finally been on the same side on 2 occasions. After almost 150 years of being constantly on the opposite sides. No, if Germany had invaded the US, I expect it to have gotten little help. England was still heavily suspicious of the US (at this time, the only positive instance was the Boxer Rebellion), Mexico was still smarting over the Mexican-American War (and Germany was so sure of their support that during WWI they sent a letter to Mexico supporting an attack on the US to regain Texas-California-Arizona-New Mexico), and the US was essentially alone (having pissed off both of their neighbors, as well as Spain, France, England, Germany, and pretty much every other nation). However, of most importance during this time, we were rebuilding our relationship with England, and through extension the United Kingdom. But this was not solidified until after the end of the Great War. In 1900 we had pissed off Spain, France, Mexico, Germany, and had (lightly) on our side the UK, Cuba (which was a newly made country), and that is about it. And to remember how tenuous that link with the UK was. The ruler of the UK at the time was the son of the former ruler, who has supported the slave-holding regions attempt to seperate in the US Civil War. A lot of people tend to blend and merge history, seeing why the American Colonies seperated from the British Empire, then understanding why they sided with England in 2 World Wars. Yet they miss the actual seperate relationships that merged and flew widely apart between the "two countries seperated by a common language". Myself, I tend to seperate them by US policies, and UK Monarchs. And in many ways, in this relationship the Monarchs have more infuence. As much as I respected old Vicky, I think she never really understood us "Fractious Colonials".
I get why you *sigh*, you have told me all this atleast 3 times. I think the British upper class had the most power, they controlled the parliament. This is one of the reasons why people like the monarchy more than the parliament, this started to change when the liberals got into power and the parliament became less controlled by the British upper class. Unlike you I have no respect for the royal family of today or Queen Victoria, but I support the monarchy over a republic in the UK as I see the current system as fine and keeping history and cultural alive, the monarchies is mainly their as the head of the church of England.
