Simple War Bookie Line

[amplifiedsilence]

"""" No other countries (eg Canada) can get involved. """

But its America, not Canada, that has always been and always will be Israel's pocket aces.

As everyone knows, Israel exists today solely due to American money and weapons (including rush delivery of illegal cluster bombs which were used against Lebanon to unsuccessfully rescue TWO Israeli's while killing lots and lots of Lebanese), so its a little too much of a stretch from reality to say that despite America's previously freerolling the entire history of the Israeli gamble, all of a sudden Israel doesn't have America's support, but is in a kill or die situation with the UK.

The cluster bombs America rush delivered to Israel when it was bombing Lebanon are indicative of the severe dependence Israel has on American money and weapons. Israel didn't even have enough armaments on its own to almost unilaterally attack one of its neighbors.

The question resembles, "Who would win a golf tournament between the two greatest golfers of all time if one of them could only use clubs for the first hole and after that had to use broom sticks? or... who would win on the Moon?"

Israel is the single largest recipient of American foreign aid and all of our presidents, especially GW have proclaimed their devotion to Israel's absolute security. The Israeli Air Force doesn't just manufacture and pay for itself -- American tax payers do that, and much much more. Thats just a fact.

Israel is synonymous with American money and weapons. America doesn't have to get involved, it just has to keep footing the bill, like its always done.

In that case, Israel could invade any country it wants. Fortunatly, its almost reclaimed all of its "Promised Land" and therefore the UK and anyone else outside the vicinity of the Promised Land is not under threat of invasion.

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[WelshMackem]

[ QUOTE ]
They also still have great access to chemical and biological warfare tools that they have yet to use in a battle. I would assume that GB doesn't have the same abilities.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I would definately not make that assumption.

Do a bit of digging into the activities at the research centre based near Aldermaston barracks. The UK has a more than adequate biological capability (purely for defensive and research purposes, obviously).

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
If this is a fight until one side surrenders or is conquered, the British strategy would seem obvious. I would start by bombing the hell out of Israel's water supply infrastructure and attempt to starve them into submission.

Of course, there is the possibility that you may actually have to starve the Israelis to death due to a "The Masada must not fall" mentality, while the Israelis will only need to inflict a lesser degree of damage to win. And I don't know if the British have the will to follow the strategy that I suggest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol, lack of British will. Go wikipedia "The Few" and/or "The Battle of Britain." If not for British will (and the stupid German decision to fight a two front war with Russia), then game over, the Nazis would have controlled the world by 1942 at the latest.

My point is: don't talk out of your ass, you look stupid.

[Goater]

Well, I always assumed my first post would be about poker. Anyway...

As someone who was born in England, but lives in Israel, I thought I would give my thoughts.

Israel has no chance of invading Britain - the IDF is just not structured to be able to acomplish such goals.

If Britain attempted to invade Israel, the result is not so clear. Yes, Israels Navy is naturally small and that is a potential large disadvantage, but the Air Force is cutting edge and extremely well trained. The numbers of soldiers Israel could theoretically call on are much lager than the UK. Army vs Army on Israeli home soil, I think Israel would win for a number of reasons.

However, as Israel is slightly smaller than New Jersey, I do not think that this outcome is a huge favourite. The geographical vulnerability of Israel means that an extremely proficient and determined army (such as the UK) may well be able to fight its way across the narrowest part of the country and cut the country in half. If they were able to do this, they are likely to win.

Regarding the issues of political will, public support, tolerance for casualties, etc... I think Israel has a huge advantage in a defensive war. To the poster who mentioned an Israeli capitulation, I am practically certain that this would never happen - even with the blockade you mention. You would have to face intense resistance from an armed and tough civilian population (including women and children) who are very conscious of their peoples recent history and would do anything and everything for the defense of their people and land - I just dont think Britain could absorb the reality of what that would mean without the vast majority of its citizens demanding an end. I believe that there is a significant chance that the British would be forced to withdraw by their own people (if they hadnt yet been defeated militarily) due to the publics lack of support.

Whilst this is probably getting more and more off the point of this thread, I nonetheless present this jumbled opinion as my introduction to you all on this great forum.

[Dave D]

I got one, since the topic seems about played out and Mr. S refuses to refine the issue about who invades who.

India vs Israel. India tries to invade Israel. No WMDs (nerve gas, sneezing gas, etc).

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. President, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!

[/ QUOTE ]

Must not forget . . .

MUFFLEY

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room! . . .

or,

KONG

Survival Kit contents check. In them you will find: one 45 caliber automatic, two boxes of ammunition, for days concentrated emergency rations, one drug issue containing antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills, pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills, one miniature combination Rooshan phrase book and Bible, one hundred dollars in rubles, one hundred dollars in gold, nine packs of chewing gum, one issue of prophylactics, three lipsticks, three pair of nylon stockings - shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas (Dallas) with all this stuff.

(And now we know David could too. Lol.)

[ike]

this is a silly question, it all comes down to what the rest of the world does while the war goes down and theres no good way to speculate on that since the scenario is so unrealistic

[Piemaster]

In response to some of the points so far:

1. I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that the US would give Israel any kind of support in a conflict against the UK. Obviously it depends on the circumstances a bit, but in a vacuum no way (although this is prohibited by the terms of the OP anyway).

2. The UK armed forces are definitely not soft. In many areas they set the benchmark for armed forces around the world. However they do contain my brother which is a slight disadvantage.

3. In times of war, the UK have a history of being very resiliant and very supportive of the army. Obviously this applies to Israel as well, but nobody questions that.

4. I agree with those who say that the UK only has a small chance of successfully invading Israel. However, a small chance is greater than no chance, which is what chance the opposite has of occuring. How would they get here?

Edge: UK
Likely outcome: A protracted draw

[JasonW1415]

[ QUOTE ]
I am talking here about no rules except no nukes or something that destroys the world. (Assume that both sides are willing to do this.)
Also what about intercepting codes, figuring out ways to electronically get every enemy plane to dive into the ocean, impersonating the opposing general and ordering the troops into an ambush, contaminating the water supply with chemicals not presently known to man that will cause 24 hours of uncontrollable sneezing, etc. etc.
Is everyone forgetting Entebbe, the six day war, and the Maccabes?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Maccabes? Really?

Given the way in which wars are presently fought, and the present disposition towards war of the respective peoples, with no rules other than "no nukes or something that destroys the world," this isn't even a question. The war would end like all the other ones, with an indecisive and meaningless UN resolution after a protracted low intensity conflict, probably fought exclusively in the eastern meditteranian.
If the question was meant to ask was who would win in a conventional war given that both sides were committed to extracting an unconditional surrender, the answer is a little more complicated.
Any reasonable wargaming analysis gives Britain an overwhelming advantage in terms of sheer military power, and even strategic positioning.
For one thing, Britain still controls Gibralter, which means that in order for the relatively small but high tech Israeli navy to launch any kind of offensive against Britain (which would require years of military restructuring, since Israel, as has been mentioned, has no force projection capabilities as of yet), they would have to fight their way out of the meditteranian first (an unlikely outcome even if the Israelis were granted complete surprize ala` Pearl Harbor at the outset of the war).
Meanwhile, the Israeli navy has absolutely no strategic depth, and if it got lucky enough to even force an engagement before the entire expeditionary force landed (unlikely), they wouldn't really pose a significant threat to the British fleet. So we could pretty much ensure that the war would be fought entirely on Israeli soil.*

Beyond this point, the ingenuity of the Israelis might come into play, but I doubt it. Israel is only 17 km wide at its narrowest point, and so it has had no option but to concentrate the bulk of its military might to preventing the country from being devided. (There are therefore four Israeli airbases within a four minute sortie of this strip). This presents the next strategic question of the war: do the British drive accross the heart of the IDF for a quick victory like Germans, or do they use an indirect approach, landing in either the northern or southern region? Or do they devide their forces and do both? (Having a regular force of volunteers the size of Israel's entire conscripted army makes this option not only possible, but realistic). I can pretty reliably say that the British wouldn't land solely in the north, because the forests are a force multiplier for the Israelis, as are their technical assets in the Golan. There are advantages to opening a two-front war that might justify landings in the north, but a decision between fighting exclusively in the Galilee or exclusively in the Negev is a no-brainer.
So basically, the British are in Israeli territory, and have the initiative.
Barring the unvailing of an Israeli superweapon, which pretty clearly doesn't exist, or a really legendary commander, who probably would have surfaced during the war in Lebanon, the Israelis are in bad shape (at least on a grand strategic scale and in a general sense, given the limited information presented in the question). Is it concievable, with no additional information for Israel to win? Yes. But it's probably not very likely.
*(Because of the condition that other countries aren't participating, we can't allow Israel the use of the Suez canal, which would require an assault by Israel against Egyptian forces). Also an assault against Egypt would be a disaster in a war against Britian.

[suppasonic]

This is an easy one. James Bond could easily take out half of Israel's military.