Duckster, others and I were talking about the War of 1812 basically in terms of the land battles in continental N. America (As that was the direction the thread had then taken).
One of the most surprising aspects of that war however, (see a SDMB thread “Handicap the coming US/UK WAR” posted in 1811 using handbills rather than the ‘Net ) that is: what I doubt that anyone would have guessed before hand, was that the U.S. floating forces (official and unofficial) gave the British Navy fits.
British Naval “bullying” of many types was a big cause of this war. Even embroiled with France & Napoleon, Britannia ruled the waves in 1812 (VERY arguable red herring alert) possibly more completely in this era than at any other point.
The U.S. won in Lake Champlain, inflicted significant losses on the RN in Chesapeake Bay - before being destroyed, and most shockingly essentially (using privateers) won a series of completely unexpected Naval victories over the RN.
Here’s a link to tonnage captured. http://www.usmm.org/warof1812.html
You will no doubt note that the RN could not bombard D.C. in 1812. They could not force their way past the Forts at Baltimore to take the city in 1812. It was British shipping which could not be protected in this war. In some ways it was the RN that was brought to heel by the events of this war. If it was at some point possible to do the strangulation blockade and sea bombing you outline ** OWL-S-T**, I would say it had to be prior to 1812. (Long range guns would improve, but the USN would be relatively stronger and the country bigger, Britain more dependant on safe secure shipping lanes - so I still stand by that).
1 exception, if Britain had thrown all her might behind the Confederacy in 1861, during the U.S. Civil War, it is ** possible** they could together have forced the U.S. to accept unfavorable terms — but I don’t think that is your question (“What combo of countries could beat the U.S. at what point”)
Regarding the possibility of war between Britain and the UK, I seem to recall reading that Britain and America came close to war in the 1920s over trade, but I’ve not seen a reference to this recently.
There were also people in the USA in the 1930s who considered allying themselves with Hitler in order to defeat communist Russia. There are a lot of what-ifs involved there, and the growing knowledge of Hitler’s crimes might have rendered this impossible. But in the run up to world war 2, Britain and Germany were both courting the USSR as an ally, so what would have happened if in 1939, a Germany with US support had swept alone through Poland and gone to war against a British-allied Russia? All rather hypothetical.
More recently there has been the possibility of the two countries arming opposite sides in wars, although I don’t know of any actual situations. During the war in Bosnia, the USA was covertly arming the Moslems, while the Conservative government in Britain, notably foreign secretary Douglas Hurd, was much more sympathetic to the Serb perspective. That could in principle have led to US-armed Bosnian Moslems fighting British-backed Serbs.
In fact, since the Bosnians were armed by the USA, the Serbs by Israel and the Croats by Germany amonst others, this war saw US-armed Bosnians fighting Serbs armed by the US’s ally Israel, and possibly (I’m not sure of the dates) US-armed Bosnians fighting German-armed Croats. (Cite for who armed who in Bosnia: http://www.guardian.co.uk/yugo/article/0,2763,688327,00.html )
Why invade Hawaii? It wasn’t part of the US in 1913. Much easier for the UK to enter into a treaty with the Hawaiian queen and boot the Americans out (she probably would have thank you folks)
It did? On what do you base that? It’s been awhile since I read that part of our Constitution, but if I recall correctly there’s a clause ending the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the early 1800’s - 1804? Said clause having nothing to do with the UK or the RN.
What, exactly, do you think the US needed in 1913 that we couldn’t supply ourselves?
American cities have been destroyed before - San Francisco, Atlanta, Chicago… they always wind up bigger than before the catastrophe. For that matter, New York took a rather savage punch about a year ago, doesn’t seem to have daunted us much.
Destruction of New York would be inconvenient and painful… but in no way would lead to surrender. The British burned selected portions of Washington DC in 1812, including the president’s residence (after repairs and repainting is when it acquired the name “The White House”) and the British still didn’t win. Thus, I say - destruction of one or two cities will not cause the US to surrender. Or agree to terms. You would have to hurt us a LOT harder than that.
Of that, there is no quesiton.
We show “unexpected fortitude” more often than not in warfare. Our enemies would do well to remember that.
I leave you with a quote from the Japanese Prime Minister to Saddam Hussein on the eve of the Gulf War: “It is far better to be friends with the United States than enemies.”
) that is: what I doubt that anyone would have guessed before hand, was that the U.S. floating forces (official and unofficial) gave the British Navy fits.
