400 airframes on vulnerable metal boxes?
400 airframes on ships each defended by its own carrier battle group comprising frigates, destroyers, and submarines, against a country whose major air bases, munitions depots, and fuel infrastructure have been bombed by our stealth bombers, yes.
It's not that small, the US Regular force consists of
38 Armoured/ Infantry "heavy battalions"
36 Light Infantry Battalions (inc. Parachute etc.)
18 Stryker Infantry Battalions
106 Artillery Batteries
The ARNG adds:
16 Heavy Battalions
38 Light Battalions
3 Stryker Battalion
14 Artillery Batteries
Totalling 149 Battalions and 120 batteries
The USMC adds 36 infantry battalions, 3 tank battalions and some odds and sods
total = 188 manoeuvre units
The British Army (and Marines) OTOH only consists of 62 manoeuvre units, roughly a third of the combined US Regular/ ARNG/ USMC totals, granted.
For comparison, the French Army consists of 30 manoeuvre units, the German Army 23 units and the Italians 37. Hence the current debate on dropping more combat units, since the British Army are very combat heavy.
Uh, I think you actually ended up arguing in favor of my point, rather than against it. In any case:
British troops (active and reserve): 441,860
American troops (active and reserves) 3,385,400
The Iraqis welcomed the liberation; it took a lot of doing to kick up that insurgency. The Iraq insurgency isn't that large, 10,000 insurgents is a reasonable figure. In Afghanistan the Taliban might be 3,000 strong at the outside, plus occasional supporters from tribesmen. These aren't large numbers are all. At their height in the mid 1970's the PIRA numbered less than 500.
And Britain (outside of Northern Ireland) is full of people inciting ethnic and religious hatred, right? In any case, the insurgency happened because we Americans were stupid and raced to take Baghdad rather than fighting and destroying Saddam's military forces. We bypassed them, so that once the war was over and obviously lost they could melt into the woodwork....with their weapons.
Besides, although the PIRA was a thorn in Britain's side, that didn't mean Britain ever lost control of Northern Ireland. And as I recall, didn't the PIRA give up violence around the turn of the millennium? In other words: didn't they lose?
But I do agree that a guerrilla war would be the best strategy. Act all big and tough before an American invasion to dissuade us from doing it, but if that doesn't work, I think Britain's best bet would be to disband their army, have their soldiers, sailor, and airmen take whatever arms they can carry, destroy whatever they can't, and leave the armories open.
Yes, you can keep 100 of your 300 cities?
Britain has four nuclear subs, with one on patrol. Maybe two. So two or three subs will be blown up in port before they even have a chance to launch. One, maybe two, will be hunted by a decent portion of the US submarine fleet (46 Los Angeles class subs alone, with some in carrier battle groups) and will also be subject to blanket nuke attacks using tactical weapons (to avoid alarming other nuclear powers with a missile launch).
So most likely, we will lose no cities. Britain, on the other hand, would be a charred ember. Although granted, I wouldn't want to gamble. If I were dictator of the United States, and for some reason wanted to invade Britain, I wouldn't use nukes, at least not until it looked like you guys would launch in defense of yourselves.
Amusingly, I think this thread has answered two questions that have plagued me.