| Soleron said: No. Simply because our armed forces are not strong enough to influence a war one way or the other. American technology and resources outclass and outnumber our forces to such a degree that there would be no point. This is assuming no nuclear weapon use - if it was involved then my answer would change. |
Two points I would like to make about this.
1. While it is true that the USA's military technology is far more advanced than ours, I'm certain that they would instantly hand over any technologies that would be beneficial to our military campaign to protect them. It would be to their advantage to empower their allies during a domestic invasion.
For example, the cavity magnetron was developed by the British in 1940 for use in world war two. When the USA joined the allies it was agreed that the technology for the cavity magnetron would be handed over to the USA. It ended up making them a far more effective force, it is one of the most important deciding factors of the war.
2. Whilst it is true that our military is too small to influence the war in any significant way, it is not the individual army that would make a difference, it is the collective army. For example, during the second world war could the USA, the UK, or the French have stopped the Axis from invading the rest of Europe by themselves? The answer would be no. It was the collective effort that won the war in the end.
In this situation if the combined armies of Europe went to defend the USA it would be an extremely powerful force. Even though individually each army is relatively weak.












