[BorBitExatini]

Things would've changed pretty dramatically in order to bring about a UK-US war. The scenario is so far fetched it's really impossible to say what role Canada would play, if any.

-Arrian, feeling an inexplicable need to state the obvious

[Cucoulkrory]

We would probably try to go neutral, if it were possible.

The British would probably be happy with that. The only question is whether the US would stand for it.

I don't see why we would mind. It's not like you guys would provide us with anything we really needed to fight the Brits, after all.

[gundos]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
We would probably try to go neutral, if it were possible.

The British would probably be happy with that. The only question is whether the US would stand for it.

I don't see why we would mind. It's not like you guys would provide us with anything we really needed to fight the Brits, after all. Operating bases half as far from your target and an auto industry almost as big as that of the US.

[numinertyuesk]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Operating bases half as far from your target and an auto industry almost as big as that of the US. In OTL the Canadian auto industry managed to support the war industry for two years, despite integration with the auto industry in neutral US. Why couldnt the US auto industry function just as well integrated with a neutral Canadian industry?

[OQmYckYz]

Actually, we were discussing today.

In 1935 it was much more likely. The UK could still pretend to be in the same league as the US at that point.

[KahiroSamo]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


In OTL the Canadian auto industry managed to support the war industry for two years, despite integration with the auto industry in neutral US. Why couldnt the US auto industry function just as well integrated with a neutral Canadian industry? a) The auto industry in 1939 was not even close to as integrated as today.

b) I'm not sure that there were no problems due to the neutral status of the US

c) Cash and carry and lend-lease were not truly neutral positions

[slarceSelia]

Operating bases half as far from your target and an auto industry almost as big as that of the US.

I still don't think the bases are close enough that we wouldn't have to use in-flight refueling. And we're not going to need your auto-industry; the war isn't going to last that long.

[Yfclciak]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Operating bases half as far from your target and an auto industry almost as big as that of the US.

I still don't think the bases are close enough that we wouldn't have to use in-flight refueling. And we're not going to need your auto-industry; the war isn't going to last that long. I think the bombers might be able to make it. If not, Newf provides a good place to get to Iceland from.

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.

You're not talking Iraq here. You're talking a country with a couple of hundred thousand troops, who are just as good as yours on a one-to-one basis, a real air defense system etc.

Transport is going to be a problem. The RAF can't hold the skies, but it will make things rough on troopships or planes.

[stunnyravytal]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Sorry to disappoint, but it wouldnt have been about YOU, it would have been about larger US vs UK issues, esp in the Pacific. In the unlikely event of a US-UK war, the US had to consider the likelihood that Canada would stand with the UK, and launch a "preemptive" strike. Thats one of the reasons Canadian PMs of the era (Borden, at the Paris conf) were so intent on smoothing over US-UK disputes.
Well considring the OP gives credit to the Canadians for burning the WH when in fact it was the British, one would conclude that Spec is still in fact a UK toady rather than a 'proud' canadian.

[bDvYaQfM]

note the warplan cited seems quite aware of this.

much of it focus is on the need to capture Halifax, and the St. Lawrence ports, to prevent "Red" from using the former to attack US shipping, and the latter to make contact with "Crimson". It seems to take for granted that Red will dominate the North Atlantic, at least to maintain sea lanes to Halifax. Presumably enough to close sea lanes from Blue to the old world. Control of Halifax gives Red the ability to interdict shipping between Blue and Latin America, and even Blues coastal shipping. And ultimately to launch raids against Blues coast, directly attacking Blues war making ability. Blues army has the advantage, and needs to act quickly to support an overstretched Blue Navy, which now has to deal with Red, Crimson, and Orange fleets.

note im discussing 1935, not 2006. I can come up with a wildly improbable, but not flat out impossible scen for 1935. Cant do that for 2006 - like somebody said, whatever you change to make it possible (Islamist UK?Fascist US?) will affect alliances, etc.

[rhiniddibiarmr]

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

[Longwow]

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

[dumadegg]

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.

[Brewpralgar]

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?

[brorialsibers]

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.

[Anymnillulky]

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

-Arrian

[ñàéäèíã]

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.