Should the USA occupy the UK?

What should the USA do in said situation?

  • 1. Devastating and possible suicidal attack against Russia.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2. Neutrality with the risks of British/Russian nuclear terrorism.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3. Denuclearisation and humanitarian occupation of the former UK

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1

Zavulon

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2024
Messages
5,010
Reaction score
1,101
Points
198
Location
Moscow
Let's play the game. Just a pure intellectual exercise, nothing real about it.

Let's imagine, that Russia and the USA has achieved mutually acceptable solution over situation in Europe. But this solution isn't really acceptable for Kievan regime and ruling regime of the UK.

American president officially demanded from his NATO "allies" don't spoil his plan, and keep the lines. Britain, also openly and officially refused to follow American orders, and, after short but furious escalation in Baltic sea - officially declared war to Russia. British Toffs and some "regime-essensial personell" left the cities and sheltered (also, they have concealed from ten to twenty 100 kt warheads somewhere in their shelters and British cities).

Obviously, Russia by a single warhead destroyed HMNB Clyde in Scotland with two (of three) Vanguard-class submarines and [unsuccessfully] tried to eliminate the last Vanguard in the sea. No civilian losses, few thousands of British soldiers and sailors are killed and injured.

Russian government suggested "humanitarian pause" (during which both sides refrain from nuking cities and can evacuate larger part population from them) and suggested peace negotiations, including demands of British neutrality and de-nuclearisation (with Americans forces as "guarantee" of safety of the UK). And said, that for every Russian city - seven British cities will be destroyed.


British government refused and ordered to the last Vanguard all-out attack against Saint Petersbourg (for one Vanguard's salvo can't overwhelm Moscow's ABD). Saint-Petersbourg is covered with S-400, but five 100 kt warheads got through. The population is partly evacuated, partly sheltered, but civilian losses are quite terrible - like, say, fifty thousand are dead and two hundred thousand are injured.
Russian government immediately ordered retaliation strike against seven largest British cities (save from London), for the population wasn't sheltered it means millions of killed civilians. Russia demanded unconditional surrender of London's regime (with further public execution of its leaders) total international occupation of the former United Kingdom, searching for concealed nuked to prevent further nuclear terrorism.

The United States may be a part of the humanitarian occupation forces if they want it or even lead them as long as they don't try to use post-war Britain against Russia.

The choices for the USA:
1) Attack Russian Federation (first of all its nuclear forces). In overoptimistic scenario it means death of at least fifty million of Americans (and lost of the US international leading position), in the pessimistic one - total extinction of Americans (and, may be, destruction of the Western civilization and The Dark Ages for Humanity).
2) Neutrality. The USA just make few steps back, evacute US personnel and US citizens and allow Brits and Russians kill each other. It will lead to death of millions of Brits (and, may be, their total extinction) and thousands of Russians, medium risk of British nuclear terrorism in American cities.
3) The US forces (may be, with the help of international community and local British people) overwhelm British King, publically execute the limited number of British war criminals, help British people to alleviate the consequences of the nuclear strikes. For the cultural and linguistic similarity between American and British people it won't be another Iraq or Vietnam.
 
Last edited:

Should the USA try to occupy the UK?


Bring in as many of those fat slabs of lard as possible .

Nothing sounds better than scamming those dummed down bird brains .

If it gets serious, we would run them ragged very quickly .
The poor dears have not won a real conflict in nearly a century .
In fact,they are now so insecure that they get other people to do their fighting for them .
 

Should the USA try to occupy the UK?


Bring in as many of those fat slabs of lard as possible .

Nothing sounds better than scamming those dummed down bird brains .


If it gets serious, we would run them ragged very quickly .
The poor dears have not won a real conflict in nearly a century .
In fact,they are now so insecure that they get other people to do their fighting for them .
We bailed your faggy asses out twice. Churchill the scumbag.
 
We bailed your faggy asses out twice. Churchill the scumbag.
Interesting how knuckle dragging morons always respond to posts with verbal abuse and very little thought as to what they're saying. Still, I suppose that people like J.S who were obviously born with their vocal cords up their ass should be pitied given their limitations.
 
Let's play the game. Just a pure intellectual exercise, nothing real about it.

Let's imagine, that Russia and the USA has achieved mutually acceptable solution over situation in Europe. But this solution isn't really acceptable for Kievan regime and ruling regime of the UK.

American president officially demanded from his NATO "allies" don't spoil his plan, and keep the lines. Britain, also openly and officially refused to follow American orders, and, after short but furious escalation in Baltic sea - officially declared war to Russia. British Toffs and some "regime-essensial personell" left the cities and sheltered (also, they have concealed from ten to twenty 100 kt warheads somewhere in their shelters and British cities).

Obviously, Russia by a single warhead destroyed HMNB Clyde in Scotland with two (of three) Vanguard-class submarines and [unsuccessfully] tried to eliminate the last Vanguard in the sea. No civilian losses, few thousands of British soldiers and sailors are killed and injured.

Russian government suggested "humanitarian pause" (during which both sides refrain from nuking cities and can evacuate larger part population from them) and suggested peace negotiations, including demands of British neutrality and de-nuclearisation (with Americans forces as "guarantee" of safety of the UK). And said, that for every Russian city - seven British cities will be destroyed.


British government refused and ordered to the last Vanguard all-out attack against Saint Petersbourg (for one Vanguard's salvo can't overwhelm Moscow's ABD). Saint-Petersbourg is covered with S-400, but five 100 kt warheads got through. The population is partly evacuated, partly sheltered, but civilian losses are quite terrible - like, say, fifty thousand are dead and two hundred thousand are injured.
Russian government immediately ordered retaliation strike against seven largest British cities (save from London), for the population wasn't sheltered it means millions of killed civilians. Russia demanded unconditional surrender of London's regime (with further public execution of its leaders) total international occupation of the former United Kingdom, searching for concealed nuked to prevent further nuclear terrorism.

The United States may be a part of the humanitarian occupation forces if they want it or even lead them as long as they don't try to use post-war Britain against Russia.

The choices for the USA:
1) Attack Russian Federation (first of all its nuclear forces). In overoptimistic scenario it means death of at least fifty million of Americans (and lost of the US international leading position), in the pessimistic one - total extinction of Americans (and, may be, destruction of the Western civilization and The Dark Ages for Humanity).
2) Neutrality. The USA just make few steps back, evacute US personnel and US citizens and allow Brits and Russians kill each other. It will lead to death of millions of Brits (and, may be, their total extinction) and thousands of Russians, medium risk of British nuclear terrorism in American cities.
3) The US forces (may be, with the help of international community and local British people) overwhelm British King, publically execute the limited number of British war criminals, help British people to alleviate the consequences of the nuclear strikes. For the cultural and linguistic similarity between American and British people it won't be another Iraq or Vietnam.
I see the resident rusky has been at the poor quality vodka again.
 
The UK is a weak country. We had to bail out these fruitcakes in two world wars.
We entered WW1 to do mop up duty only because the allies were deeply in debt to our large industries and we had allies in WW2. There were 26 (twenty-six) allied nations in WW2 where Russia lost 20 million and we lost 400,000. History isn`t learned by watching old John Wayne movies. Read a book or have a passing 5th grader read one to you.
 
I see the resident rusky has been at the poor quality vodka again.
My vodka is quite good and pure. Can't say the same thing about British medicines,that's why I ask you.

But the questions are quite simple, I believe:

Are you ready to think about unthinkable?
Is the USA independent state, actually defending their own goals when it comes to literally death and life matters?
 

Should the USA try to occupy the UK?


Bring in as many of those fat slabs of lard as possible .

Nothing sounds better than scamming those dummed down bird brains .


If it gets serious, we would run them ragged very quickly .
The poor dears have not won a real conflict in nearly a century .
In fact,they are now so insecure that they get other people to do their fighting for them .
Are you a Brit? What do you prefer - American occupation (and humanitarian aid), or Russian nuclear bombing campaign (with almost certain death)? Are you ready to defend British Toffs, while they left you to die under Russian nuclear bombs?
 
We bailed your faggy asses out twice. Churchill the scumbag.

Yes , your President had to run the Pearl Harbour False Flag to get your cowards to join up .
And had to introduce legislation to prevent the US Nazi industrialists and bankers from further financing Berlin and their best friend , Uncle Adolf .

And if that was not treacherous enough we then had to hold your hand as we moved into Berlin.
.
Frankly your War record is so appalling that you need to change the record quickly .
Never forget that it was only Team GB Land that stood up to those beastly Germs before your inexperienced youngsters turned up to join us and our Commonwealth pals .

Finally , US traitor Alan Dulles helped set up the Fourth Reich via Operation Paper Clip .

We actually won World War 2 despite the best efforts of the US to ruin it for us .
 
Yes , your President had to run the Pearl Harbour False Flag to get your cowards to join up .
And had to introduce legislation to prevent the US Nazi industrialists and bankers from further financing Berlin and their best friend , Uncle Adolf .

And if that was not treacherous enough we then had to hold your hand as we moved into Berlin.

.
Frankly your War record is so appalling that you need to change the record quickly .
Never forget that it was only Team GB Land that stood up to those beastly Germs before your inexperienced youngsters turned up to join us and our Commonwealth pals .

Finally , US traitor Alan Dulles helped set up the Fourth Reich via Operation Paper Clip .

We actually won World War 2 despite the best efforts of the US to ruin it for us .
You loved that FDR bailed you out.
 
Interesting how knuckle dragging morons always respond to posts with verbal abuse and very little thought as to what they're saying. Still, I suppose that people like J.S who were obviously born with their vocal cords up their ass should be pitied given their limitations.
ok, queer
 
Are you a Brit? What do you prefer - American occupation (and humanitarian aid), or Russian nuclear bombing campaign (with almost certain death)? Are you ready to defend British Toffs, while they left you to die under Russian nuclear bombs?

Do I sound like a person who ever loses ?

The Americans could not occupy a broom cupboard successfully, and they will continue to do as they are told , exactly as has been happening behind the scenes since WW2,

Both Uncle Pooty and I both know that he , Voldya, would never initiate Atomic warfare .

If they chose to take retaliatory action their main force would attack the US with any UK losses only on the east coast where the Yanks are stationed plus London .


The blasts would not effect me in the far south east and within the hour I would depart from Shoreham airport to wherever I chose .


However , and quite separately, I suspect Atomic warfare is literally impossible , but that would mean entering the world of inter galactic politics and being aware of the actions that its Council members would take instantly .
Which I believe is well understood by all involved people here, but obviously is judged to be above Top Secret by them . Kept Secret from the Sheeple .
However , this is self evident if you have studied these matters from the end of WW2 .

So . No problems . Just temporary inconvenience.
 

Should the USA try to occupy the UK?


Bring in as many of those fat slabs of lard as possible .

Nothing sounds better than scamming those dummed down bird brains .


If it gets serious, we would run them ragged very quickly .
The poor dears have not won a real conflict in nearly a century .
In fact,they are now so insecure that they get other people to do their fighting for them .
Nylons and chocolates for you to your heart's desire!!!

Greg
 
15th post
Nylons and chocolates for you to your heart's desire!!!

Greg

Instead of resorting to 80 year old stereotype quips , you ought to dedicate yourself to finding out exactly what is going on at Pine Gap in the middle of your desert .

Completely US funded with many US personnel .
And if you think it is just the biggest info gathering site on the planet , you have barely scratched the surface .
 
Interesting how knuckle dragging morons always respond to posts with verbal abuse and very little thought as to what they're saying. Still, I suppose that people like J.S who were obviously born with their vocal cords up their ass should be pitied given their limitations.

It's the whole "My country is great, therefore I must be great" kind of mentality. The only way they can elevate themselves (other than racism, xenophobia, violence and.... damn, there are loads)
 
Do I sound like a person who ever loses ?

Actually, yes.
The Americans could not occupy a broom cupboard successfully, and they will continue to do as they are told , exactly as has been happening behind the scenes since WW2,
Really? Will the Brits attack American allies, who are trying to alleviate consequences of the Russian nuclear strikes and save British people? Those Americans who want to stop the war and save the rest of British population?

Both Uncle Pooty and I both know that he , Voldya, would never initiate Atomic warfare .
If Britain declared war - he simply won't have a lot of choice. If the war is inevitable (or even already declared) - the first counter-force strike is essential.

If they chose to take retaliatory action their main force would attack the US with any UK losses only on the east coast where the Yanks are stationed plus London .
No. In this scenario Russians are not going to attack Americans, first of all because it were not Americans who declared the war to Russia and who destroyed Saint-Petersbourg.

In our scenario Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds are FUBARed and roughly half of their population are dead. British government still have some concealed nukes and is going to nuke another Russian city (by a sneaky terroristic attack) if you allow them. And in this case seven other British cities will be destroyed. Russians want to prevent it. Americans want to prevent it, and, I believe it is British citizen who should be interested in it in the first place.


The blasts would not effect me in the far south east and within the hour I would depart from Shoreham airport to wherever I chose .
Only if the government won't close the borders and if you are rich enough to buy the ticket.. And, what do you think - should people who are not going to face the consequences of their choice - be allowed to make their choices?
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom