Commonwealth Of Nations Vs USA, Who would win?

What do you mean by win? And there are more countries in the commonwealth, AFAIK.

If you mean a military conflict, the US would win hands down, as long as we are not considering nukes - that would be everyone's end. But the conflict would probably be pointless, because the Commonwealth can't win and the US can't occupy these countries.

well canada would be absorbed first, but after that, it all depends on how the naval/air combat goes.

US... 3000 nuclear weapons can do a lot of winning.  Not to mention training, experience, complete command of the sea and air.  Throw in the best armored forces in the world to boot, and we aren't talking much of a contest here.  Also add in the fact that certain nations armed forces are designed to be modular and "slot in" with existing capabilities provided by the US under NATO auspices (looking at you Canada).  Pakistan and India would still be pretty distracted by each other and problems on thier respective flanks/near dissolution.

I would win.

Commonwealth would eventuly win, excluding nucluer war were no one wins. For many reasons.

1) The size of the commonwealth, it would be imposible of rthe US to controll all of the territories and all of the people, the US simply would not have enought man power. But the commonwealth will not have such man power shortages and the size of the US is manageble.

2) Economic will make teh commonwealt once againt have more endurance in teh long run then the US. The US is indeed a big trading partner but in total it does not rival the size of the commonwealt nor the revenue it can generate. So should trading embargos be placed it's teh Us that will most likely be cut off and not the Wealth. A trade embargo on teh US would mean lost of problems for the US such as lack of basic needs witch coudl lead the contrie to civil war as it citizens will start fighting for food and what not.

3) On a diplomatic stand point Wealth contries tend to be alot more liked and appreciated on the world stage then the US is. This will make diplomatic relation with others easier for the Wealtha nd harder for the US since the US mostly has the best relationships with Wealth contries more often then other countries.

4) Ban wagon jumping. US one of the most hated contries in the world because of their actions they undertake around the world. So other nation likely to get involved in teh fighting are likely to side with the Wealth againts the US.

The US would initialy have the upper hand in that they have large forces all about the world. But individualy these forces are vulnerable and they would fall ratehr quickly individualy. this would knock out the US prime advanatge in the war. In other words the US is stretched out to thin and US generals them selves have already openly stated this out.

I agree with EadTaes. The US has 1.3 million troops compared to the UK's 230,000. Many Commonwealth nations have no more than 90,000 (Canada). Many of the Commonwealth nations like Zambia and South Africa wouldn't have the economic strength for a prolonged war. If India did try to fight the US, they may have more of a fighting chance,(1 billion people vs. one million soldiers is a short fight), but if the US pulled out some nukes, we all know what the outcome would be. The US would win diplomaticly do to their influence over many smaller states, and would hence have considerible backing against the Commonwealth's diplomatic effort.

All in all, the US is a political and military juggernaut. Long story short.

Silly question.

Both the USA/Commonwealth (esp. India) are so important for the global economy that any sort of conflict would be massively destabilizing for both sides. In a shooting war, it's debatable whether the UK, India, and Pakistan have a robust enough second-strike capability.

You sir have reading issues.

The US would lose most of its forces to friendly fire...

lol

I had forgoten about that one. Cowboy soldiers and the predictable result.

LOL!, Nice

Its a question which got stuck in my mind, if the commonwealth of nations were to unite back to the days before, would they still be a superpower? my ansewer is yes, even bigger then amercia, its easy to take over and control one nation, maybe even 3 for the USA, but the nations under the commonwealth are too vast,  and some have very large armies.

The USA advanatge of placement of there troops would be pointless, becuase of the placement of the commonwealth of nations. Canada would be the first to go, but if they recived help from Britain, then they would last or would be able to hold the USA for much longer. And not forgetting Britain has the best trained troops then any other country in the world, and the best special forces diverisons , e.g SAS, Royal Marines etc.

Our miltary force has downsized a lot in over a century, from being the biggest superpower in the world, to now the 5th in miltary expendienture, it should be Britain lending support to other nations such as soilders etc, not america, Britain owned 1/3 of the world, but somehow they let there reponisbilites slip, and becuase of this, they let Amercia take the lead Role.

God damn yanks, why did they have to revolt

Assumption - No nukes used, otherwise there can only be one result-  human extinction. Only the US and UK have significant nuclear capability. If the US managed to nuke all of the Commonwealth, we would have loooooooooong nuclear and full ecological damage. No winners here.

Considering diplomatic factors is non-sensical. US is very important but the Commonwealth has 54 countries in it, guaranteeing a strong diplomacy. If the UK, Australia and Canada as well as India and Pakistan are against the US, then in effect Russia, China, the EU, the Muslim countries and African countries are against the US, even if only indirectly. This can have only one result, no matter what.

If we artificially restrict the war as mentioned in the OP, the US wins in the initial conflict but after that it is just a stalemate. The US can't even hope to successfully mount a ground invasion anywhere except Canada. The others just don't have enough military capability to invade the US, whether it be the army, navy or the air force. Stalemate.

An all out war between any nation and the US could result in total military and related infrastructure destruction within days.  The US hasn't done anything resembling an all out war since WWII.  There is no coming to aid and holding out anymore, that was antiquated with the modern jet and high grade explosives.  The air war could be over within an hour of beginning.  Europe couldn't even get there before it was finished.  There is no matching air force to stop it, no one even comes close.

I might put my money on the Brits for special forces, but there simply isn't anything short of nukes that those nations could do to stop a serious extermination bent at this stage.  Without including China and Russia in there, it's a completely shafted matchup.  You didn't even include France, they might not use it but they spend just as much as the UK does.  We spend more money than every other country combined if you don't include those two.  Even doing so, it's 42-58%.  We might even be able to wipe the floor with everyone combined since we're the only ones with a serious level of experience right now.  The US can't conquer worth shit due to manpower restrictions, but it could bomb a civilization into the stone age no problem at all.

Ten years from now it's probably going to be a different story though, since we'll all be living on welfare in ghettos trying to get the windmill farm on our roof to work...

The original poster assumes (the usual American assumption  ) that the queen is head of state of the UK, which while being technically true, is merely a ceremonial position with no power.  She still is actually head of state of most of the commonwealth countries anyhow.

LOL... special forces do not a war make.  And that friendly fire comment is much, much more likely to happen to the commonwealth than American forces.  Taking the best of the commonwealth forces, namely Britain, are still no match in a straight up fight against the American army.  The Canadian Army (were it to try) wouldn't even come close, and any sane officer would tell you as such.  Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for the Canadian (and British) military... meeting the Canadian advising officers recently back from Afghanistan that I met when my unit was supporting our sister brigades NTC rotation to go take the Canadian unit's place there was a very interesting experience.  That being said, the Canadian Army is a relatively light force... probably about 3-4 light or Stryker Brigade's worth of firepower in a standup fight... one of our HBCT's would cut through them.  The Brits, while no mean tankers, also lack the necessary components for "Land-Air-Sea..."  Combined arms wouldn't really be a fight the brits could win.  Making any of the other nation's numbers relevent would be almost impossible even with a navy that would enable them to come to grips with us, as success is not found in numbers, it comes to the one able to mass combat power at the decisive point.  Nobody does that better than the US.

Okay Mr. OP, what exactly was running through your mind when you created this thread?

And your all forgetting one important thing about the C'wealth; the United Kingdom seems to have a bad habit of ignoring its own creation (and thus hurting itself) for that bunch of burecratically lead, budget blowing surrender states known as the EU.  *sigh*  Churchill was so quickly forgotten.

However, any war between the two would be downright impossibe.  The Commonwealth is not a military organisation, and any attempt to change that would be seen as (rightly, I think) resurfacing British Imperialism.  Now, if the Commonwealth decided to stop all trade with the US, well, they'd probably still be okay with such a large domestic market.  Besides, the question is why?  Why would a whole bunch of English speaking countries attack another English speaking country which shares a lot of their values?  Why stab one of their most useful allies in the back?  As long as America is top of the world list, the Commonwealth is in a very favourable position.

Sure, people may not like the Americans, but who would you prefer?  China?

one problem is that SunnyHawk lives in the UK

_|~Uber

I luve you.

Erm...thanks?

And lol @ Uber's point!

Computer says no.

There is no counter to the sense of humour commanded by us Brits. Some might say it is OP...

On a serious note I wouldn't rate the UK as having a better diplomatic standing in the world than the US these days for the concerned tag alongs this Defcon situation

Commonwealth will win because of the Andromeda Ascendant...

Oooopssss... political topic... sory guys, but it relate it to the sins forum where i have see these post...

Uh. Guys.

Really?