Heinrich7

@sophia89: Exactly Sophia, that's what I was trying to claim above.

The British did in fact have the most powerful Naval and Land Forces of the time. But the issue is taking on around 5 million US troops(Lets face it, the US is going to conscript out the behind on this one, those are US Civil War Numbers but it could be even more than that), hundreds of thousands of Volunteer Militia, and millions of non conscripted civilians, many who are armed to the teeth in a country with a massive gun culture("You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." -Yamamoto), sure, that was said in the 1940s, but the gun culture was as well as prevalent in the 1860s.

What makes this a stalemate, is the Atlantic Ocean IMO. Massive as it is, the British Empire doesn't have enough ships to transport all its many soldiers at once. It would be a nightmare for the British soldiers abroad. Even if You capture port cities(I think they could do it) You're going to be attacked on every, I mean every single flank You have. You're going to run out of ammo constantly even if You survive and hold, the US can transport supplies to it's troops far faster because this is on US soil with it's vast Railroad Network.

If we include the entirety of the British Empire(As Dewin50 pointed out) and the UK doesn't have to station one soldier outside of the US conflict, then I CAN see them winning after suffering a massive war with colossal casualties on both sides, afterwards, Britain wouldn't be able to keep up with the insurgencies and uprisings spread out all over east of the Mississippi. It would hurt itself more in doing that and could lead to the collapse of the Empire. And it wouldn't be easy, as I said the casualties will be atrocious for both sides.

OP said no other countries get involved, but can India up and leave when the British pull everything out?...Britian had to do massive show of force to keep it's Empire in line. They can't just pull every able body man out, the Empire would fall apart in a matter of months. OP should clarify if the UK can use every single man throughout the world with no other factors.

IMO this is still a stalemate, neither side gets anywhere, it turns into a Naval dispute that gets resolved in a matter of months. I do believe the US would suffer from blockades and port losses as Dewin and I also pointed out.

@jagernutt: I agree with that, the Spanish Navy wasn't all too amazing.

@jagernutt : @dewin50 No doubt they had the most powerful land military at the time(Excluding the Bismarck era German Empire , as you mentioned). I have no doubt, they could amass a large force for this hypothetical conflict.

But like I said, In a war, you need constant good supply lines(Ships, while they can deliver cargo every few months, need to be able to keep up with the demand), a sustainable reinforcement rate(At least to compete with the US mainland's railroad network), a secure flank, you have to land the troops(And OP said the US knows they are coming, so they have some prep time), along with that land a large enough force to defeat the US Military and Militia to secure some ground first, and the capability to control the population all at the same time so they don't throw you back out. When you take ground, you're going to be outflanked unless you're invading an island. There are a lot of obstacles to taking over the Americas.

Finland proved that during World War 2 against the Soviet Union, a well trained military given the proper terrain and flanking potential, can hold off against a far larger invasion force. Terrain(And the Atlantic Ocean, in this instance) play a massive role, as does some prep time. The US here, while lacking in raw military power overall, has a terrain advantage and a large networked system of railroads(Far more developed than the few Canada had at the time).

I just fail to see how you can land a large enough blow(In one burst) to take the initial ground and setup a few strong front lines. European countries had a cakewalk seizing African territory during the 19 century, but no such thing was ever done to a first world developed nation like the US(Unless we're counting the Ausso-Prussian War, and Austria and Prussia were neighbours so the circumstances were very different).

What You and Dewin50 are saying is very true and I'm ware of the might the UK had in the late 19th century, it was in all ways, superior to what the US had. But the Atlantic Ocean is a large obstacle, not to mention the size of the US even if you are able to successfully take ground.

@xtreme1: No, Britain is far more powerful overall, the US didn't become the dominant world superpower until after 1943. But the US has the Atlantic Ocean and very good territory to setup a great parameter, Britain has to travel through, and get around that. That's basically why I think it's a stalemate for both nations. I mean sure, if Britain's Navy was able to keep up with the US's Railroad Network Supply Lines, and had a decent front line to work with, I believe it'd be easy for them.

@jagernutt: Indeed. It's why I mentioned that. But that is only true for the early part of the war. Britain was able to devote more manpower into Canada once the Napoleonic Wars came to a close.

There was low war support in the US as well. And the war was mainly waged due to the capture of US sailors abroad in the Atlantic during the events in Europe. Madison came under immense scrutiny for his actions. And it led to mass military deseritions which led to the US having to pull back from their campaigns in Upper and Lower Canada.

Britain's Navy Dwarfed the US's at that time. And the US's Militia Alone was 10X the size of the British Military, that's not counting Natives or the US Military itself. The US had a wider population gap(much wider) in the 1860s.

All in all, the US wouldn't be able to make much, if any gains on Britain, and Britain wouldn't be able to make much, if any gains on the US. Britain could sack some port cities, akin to Washington. The US could sack some Canadian cities, akin to York.

All in all, it ends in a trade embargo war that resolves itself in 6 months to a year. With neither side able to make significant progress.

It really wasn't an all out war tbh. Madison was met with tons of opposition when he started it, and there were mass protests against it and even mass desertions. Even then, the US took more land(Temporarily I might add) in Canada then Britain was ever able to take in the United States(None). But to be fair, they were at war with Napoleon.

And as I said, they lost most portside battles.

@royal_warrior: This is correct, it was Spain, France and the Netherlands that were helping the Colonies. But I should add that both sides suffered severe casualties in the Americas throughout the war.

@jagernutt: Thats because nobody was stationed there. Look up the burning of Washington on Wikipedia.

They actually lost many portside battles in 1812.

The British Empire, at that time, was without a doubt the world's greatest superpower. But it's more complicated than that, just because You have a professional army, it doesn't mean you have enough ships to actually carry all of them at once.

What I could see happening, is Britain taking some undefended port cities(Akin to what happened in 1812). But no way are they grinding down an army that's several times larger than theirs, especially when they have to land them ship by ship. Granted Britain was ahead in military tactics at the time, using breech loaders and skirmishing tactics, while the US was still using Napoleonic Mass Lines.

The US at that time almost had as much people as modern Britain has today. Even with regulars from their dominions, they just don't have the manpower to take much ground. They take a few little towns, maybe could take Boston. US military has them outflanked, outnumbered and outgunned on all sides, they retreat or get driven out. Naval Trade War starts, sanctions and embargoes are placed on the other(Though Britain suffers more because the US exported way more than they did), and it ends in a peace treaty.

The US at that point was practically impossible to invade, hold and maintain. And to be fair, the same would be said of Britain. The US can't get around Britain's Navy, and Britain doesn't have anywhere CLOSE to the manpower needed to even take a couple cities(And that's even if they can win a few battles).

It turns into a Naval Trade War and they sign a peace treaty a few months later.

@acrokitten: Extremely, coming from someone who's played TF2/CSGO since launch, and CS: Source, I've almost barely touch them ever since I got Overwatch.

Blizzard is one of those companies who really take their time to perfect the perfect gameplay.

Rogue One, especially in terms of the action sequences. Extremely well executed and shot. The Space Battle is probably the most prominent achievement in the film IMO.

Best Star Wars action we've got since the OT. I'd say, in some ways, it's even better than Endor.

@sirfizzwhizz: I agree, It's funny too that all the critics that I like(RLM as one example) are just taking a dump on RO because, in their words, it's not "Star Warsy" enough. If anything, it proves that people just want the same thing over and over and over again.

I hope they make more EU/Legends like content. I want Dark Jedi, Grey Jedi(The likes of Jolee Bindo and such), that actually explore the full depth of the Star Wars Universe. There were many kinds of Force Sensitives, it be awesome to see the new lore expand upon them in the upcoming movies. A Grand Admiral Thrawn Movie would be perfect for this.

Anyways, more new stories. The OT exists, it's never going to be topped by paralleling it, so Disney might as just well come up with new and original ideas.

As someone who's well versed in futurology myself, it's funny to go back and read comments from 2014/2015 saying it'd be centuries before we colonize Mars. That's the linearity of the human brain for you, it takes current technological potential and development and extends it into the future. Biological Brains just can't handle exponential doublings very well. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just how it evolved. Time and time again this is the case.

I'm hoping Musk can get us to start colonizing Mars in the 2020s, with the current gains in accelerated returns, it's looking like that will be the case. With Artificial General Intelligence on the horizon, it/he/she should be able to solve any problems that humans face today. It will be more intelligent than the entire Human race combined. To put into into a retrospective for you fellow comic/manga fans, it'll make Brainiac look like nothing.

Indefinite Life Extension or Biological Immortality is nice, but it doesn't make you immortal. The real deal is nanotechnogical mind uploading, via a gradual method. Of the sort that Drexler proposed. Along with a mix of Quantum Archaeology(It's actually proven btw, but that's a whole other discussion). The dead will come back. We just have to get QA working on a macro scale. As of now, we've only brought back molecular structures.

At any rate, you'll be more conscious, more alive, and more "Human" than a Human ever was after you ditch the primate/monkey suit. AGI will more than solve this problem, probably during the 2020 or early 2030s.

Anyways, carry on...