ID
Password
FlashGuide
FlashGuide
HA Infomation

Off-Topic

  Index

  • Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 13:24


MrDucky

How would a huge war look like between the British Commonwealth and the Union of South American Nations for the Falklands?

Okay the Commonwealth isn't really a military alliance but what if the entire Commonwealth was supporting Britain and the entire Union of South American Nations supporting Argentina in a war for the Falkland Islands. What would happened? Would the combined strength of the Union of South American Nations pummel the Commonwealth of Nations?

I was hoping we could discuss what would happen and suggest plans for stuff like re-taking the Falklands with Commonwealth forces. Sort of like the discussion going on in one of the old threads on the regional forums with Sindher and others discussing what would be militarily feasible etc. We would sort of be like Armchair generals.

 

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 13:49


angus725

NATO would setup in if UK really need the help. There's not a single military power in this world right now that can really counterbalance the USN's 11 Supercarriers.

You also have to take into consideration of the RN's 2 new super carriers. Once they're in operation, the RN would be formidable again.

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 14:42


PugnaxLupus

The Commonwealth has 54 member countires VS the USAN which has 12.

The Commonwelth has 2 of the worlds largest economies (G8) Vs the USAN which has no members of the G8.

If any member attacks the Falkland islands, that would invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter, "An attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all"

So yeah, i would love to see Argentina start a war with the UK, they would get pummled just like they did in 1982. Would make for intersting TV.

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 15:24


MrDucky

I do not want to get NATO involved. I just want to see how those two organizations would fight each other.

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 16:33


jubdub1

Somebody has way too much time on their hands.

It's Argentina, dude. Of course they'd lose. Again. 

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 19:59


Carrotdood

Mhm. I don't think Colombia would get into that mess. Our army is busy enough fighting a civil war. And, let's face it, the Colombian army is among the best in this part of the world. Fighting the guerrillas for more than 40 years really helps. And, since we get a lot of economical help from the US, I don't think we'd want to get involved.

Venezuela is a whole different story, though. Their president is anti-imperialist to the bone, so he would go head on. The Venezuelan military isn't as big or well trained as the Colombian military, but they've gotten some pretty cool **** they bought from Russia. 

I don't know about the other countries.  I believe one of the decisive factors would be Brazil, as they are the strongest country in South America.

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 20:10


MukMuk

Well he is just assuming that all happens Carrot.

Hmm the Canadians, Aussies, Kiwis etc. will be helping Britain. What could they do? India could provide a lot of manpower just like they did in WW2. The USAN would certainly lose.

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 02. 2012 22:54


PugnaxLupus

Argentina should know better to get into a war with a Nuclear power. And the Commonwealth contains 3 nuclear powers.

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 03. 2012 07:15


Sindher

If for some reason the Commonwealth became a British Empire V2.0 then it would be one sided. One sided like a gang rape.

Imagine the production, manpower and technical capabilities of all CW nations combined against the favela dwellers of South America.

Chile would also side with Britain.

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 03. 2012 13:17


MukMuk

Originally Posted by Sindher

If for some reason the Commonwealth became a British Empire V2.0 then it would be one sided. One sided like a gang rape.

Imagine the production, manpower and technical capabilities of all CW nations combined against the favela dwellers of South America.

Chile would also side with Britain.

Assuming it was a British Empire V2.0 with HM The Queen as sovereign of all the countries. It would be perfect. The British Empire would have been perfect and lasted a bit longer if Britain treated everyone better and if everyone wasn't so racist back then.

Anyways assuming they do take the Falklands and have a month or two to prepare defenses what is the CW or British Empire V2.0 gonna do? Send The King's African Rifles, Scots Guards, and the Royal Regiment of Canada to storm the beaches?

  • Re : Commonwealth vs Union of South American Nations

    04. 04. 2012 05:15


Sindher

Originally Posted by MukMuk

Originally Posted by Sindher

If for some reason the Commonwealth became a British Empire V2.0 then it would be one sided. One sided like a gang rape.

Imagine the production, manpower and technical capabilities of all CW nations combined against the favela dwellers of South America.

Chile would also side with Britain.

Assuming it was a British Empire V2.0 with HM The Queen as sovereign of all the countries. It would be perfect. The British Empire would have been perfect and lasted a bit longer if Britain treated everyone better and if everyone wasn't so racist back then.

Anyways assuming they do take the Falklands and have a month or two to prepare defenses what is the CW or British Empire V2.0 gonna do? Send The King's African Rifles, Scots Guards, and the Royal Regiment of Canada to storm the beaches?



This is assuming that Argentina can defeat whatever Air, Sea and Land forces we have stationed there with their 1980's military.

1 2 3 4