If Bigwig likes to stir the pot, how 'bout the Great El-ahrairah?

Since Bigwig decided to stir the pot over at Siflay Hraka, the Great El-ahrairah has decided to do the same thing over here at the Warren. The idea came to me from reading a discussion topic on the StrategyPage. The StrategyPages is devoted to military "stuff", i.e., information, questions, etc., about everything military. I read it every day since it talks more about Iraq and the military than the other news media and is much more balanced, but it does have a problem with "link rot", however. Anyway, one of the discussion topics was the following:

"Lets say for hypothetical reasons, that France declares war on Britain. And lets assume the war is a non-nuclear war. Who would win?"

I don't know about you, but after taking a femto-second to reflect on my answer, I blurted out, "The British! DUH!". TO make sure that I wasn't being too anti-French, I asked some of my "illustrious" collegues and they all said pretty well the same thing, "The British! DUH!"

My reasoning is for my answer is the following:

1. The British Navy would either sink or bottle the French Navy up in port at the start of the war. To avoid loosing the "pride" of the French fleet, the French aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaule, would "suddenly" develop major problems and be required to sit in port. If not, a British sub would send it to the bottom the same way that they sent that Argie cruiser to the bottom during the Falklands.

2. All fighting would take place on French soil for reason #1 above and because the British have more experience "hitting the beach" in France than vice versa. All wars between the French and British armies always took place on the Continent except for the Battle of Hastings in 1066 between King Harald of the Anglo-Saxons and William the Conqueror of Normandy (and which subsequently corrupted the Anglo-Saxon language with French and gave us English). The only other times that the British fought someone on British soil was when they were fighting the Romans, Vikings, Scots and Welsh.

3. Over the past twenty + years, the British have mobilized and fought in four major wars, The Falklands, Desert Storm, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The French have "fought" in one, Desert Storm, and other than the French Foreign Legion, no other French ground forces saw any real combat.

4. The British intelligence assets have been integrated with the US forces for many years and know what needs to be done to control the battlespace. The French have read lots of papers, but have no pratical application. The first rule of warfare is: Although you might have the largest, best-trained, best-equiped military in the world, if you don't know where the enemy is, you might as well be fighting with Girl Scouts. The British intel capabilities far surpass those of the French, ergo, within a day or two of the outbreak of hostilies, the French would be quickly blinded.

5. The British have a grand tradition of fighting and winning wars against many enemies, but especially the French. The French have a grand tradition of loosing wars. The British go into a war, expecting to eventually win. The French go into a battle, hoping to win, but ready to surrender if it means protecting their cultural "heritage".

From just these five reasons, it should be apparent that the British would win. However, if you have a differing viewpoint or would like to "preach to the choir", feel free to respond.