Likelihood of us-uk war from 1919 to 1925

Magical123

Banned
Hey this is has always interested me and I am curious if it was possible and what would the ramifications be- what if because of the naval arms race and a lack of treaty resolution and or perhaps the maintence of the anglo-japanese treaty of a conflict between the US and the UK if so how would it turn out and what would the long term(meaning rest of twentieth century and afterwards) follow?
 
Very low. The Washington Naval Treay happened because nobody really wanted to try to pay for the next generation of battleships. A war would be a lot more expensive and the US and UK just finished as alliews in WW1. Why would they want to fight now?

Yes, I know about War Plan Red and its British equivalent. These were staff planning excercises based on the idea that only the US and UK hasd sufficient naval forrces to even seriously threaten each other, and capabilities drive planning. The plans did not really address the highly unlikly nature of the scenario.
 
Very low. The Washington Naval Treay happened because nobody really wanted to try to pay for the next generation of battleships. A war would be a lot more expensive and the US and UK just finished as alliews in WW1. Why would they want to fight now?

Yes, I know about War Plan Red and its British equivalent. These were staff planning excercises based on the idea that only the US and UK hasd sufficient naval forrces to even seriously threaten each other, and capabilities drive planning. The plans did not really address the highly unlikly nature of the scenario.

And even then. The use of everything from commandoes to poison gas, amphibious attacks on ports and generally little attention paid to practicalities of it all despite the very in depth exercises for war plan Orange and the like leads me to think it was more a draft board for testing out what the mix of old and new weapons and ideas could potentially do and how to combine them rather than actually use them. Not exactly staff work so much as brainstorming on a scenario unlikely enough not to need any conservatism and hedged bets in order to reduce risk.
 

Magical123

Banned
I think I specified there would be no treaty. Anyway likelihood aside what would the consequences short and long term be if it occurred?
 
Not how it works, you need setup to predict how something is going to play out.

Agreed. You would have to pick a realistic flashpoint that would escalate into a full blown conflict. And unfortunately, short of King George sailing across the Atlantic with an invasion fleet to retake new England, a US v UK conflict in the time period you specified is to too ASB.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Zero

Hey this is has always interested me and I am curious if it was possible and what would the ramifications be- what if because of the naval arms race and a lack of treaty resolution and or perhaps the maintence of the anglo-japanese treaty of a conflict between the US and the UK if so how would it turn out and what would the long term(meaning rest of twentieth century and afterwards) follow?

Zero.

The West had just spent four years beating itself to a pulp; no one had any interest in doing it again.

Best,
 
Very low. The Washington Naval Treay happened because nobody really wanted to try to pay for the next generation of battleships. A war would be a lot more expensive and the US and UK just finished as alliews in WW1. Why would they want to fight now?

Yes, I know about War Plan Red and its British equivalent. These were staff planning excercises based on the idea that only the US and UK hasd sufficient naval forrces to even seriously threaten each other, and capabilities drive planning. The plans did not really address the highly unlikly nature of the scenario.

And even then. The use of everything from commandoes to poison gas, amphibious attacks on ports and generally little attention paid to practicalities of it all despite the very in depth exercises for war plan Orange and the like leads me to think it was more a draft board for testing out what the mix of old and new weapons and ideas could potentially do and how to combine them rather than actually use them. Not exactly staff work so much as brainstorming on a scenario unlikely enough not to need any conservatism and hedged bets in order to reduce risk.

And besides, it's better to be prepared for an eventuality that's unlikely than it is to be unprepared and caught with your pants down if the unlikely happens.

The military of both the UK and the USA would be in remiss of their duties to have not at least contemplated how to defend their nation against any potential enemies. Just because an Anglo-American conflict was brainstormed on both sides for that 0.001% chance of happening, then left to gather dust in a cabinet somewhere, does not mean either side seriously considered going to war with one another.
 
Top