NationStates Jolt Archive

Who would win in a global war the European Union or America?

No one.

Everyone loses in war.

America 'cause China would help us :P

hahahahahahahahahaha! ...........now whats your question really??

Okay, America has some brilliant minds too.

With that said, obviously America. Why is this being asked? How could Americas not lose? Everyone knows this, including Europeans,

(Yes, I do live in America, no, I am not American yet.)

EU, America allready has a number of enemies who would gladly support the EU.

No one wins in a war. People go off to die for the mistakes of dictators or politicians, and others get caught in the crossfire.

The only people who might "Win" at all would be the governments of the "winning" countries and their economies.

America 'cause China would help us :P

Not really, afterall why should they? In my belief they are waiting for America to completely screw it's self over before they come in and finish the job. Besides America might have the best weapons, but numbers win. That's why we have yet to say anything to North Korea about the WMDs. I mean the entire European Union plus whatever global backing they can get from allies? Please America would get crushed. :roll:

Who would win in a global war the European Union or America?

Only the crows would profit...

Due to MAD (mutually assured destruction) both entities (i wont call them countries, as the EU isnt one) would become glowing, radioactive deserts in pretty quick order.

Why the EU

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/350/euro_vs_america.jpg
;)


I think if there ever was war, it would ennd quite quickly with neither side wanting to act too decicivly.

EU, because all of the USA's many enemies would help them. That includes China. We may trade with them, but they are an enemy, and would jump at any chance to help the downfall of the US.

Why the EU

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/350/euro_vs_america.jpg
;)


I think if there ever was war, it would ennd quite quickly with neither side wanting to act too decicivly.

I live in the U.S. and there are way to many fat people here.

A lot of hot ones if you know where to look :lol:

Why the EU

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/350/euro_vs_america.jpg
;)


I think if there ever was war, it would ennd quite quickly with neither side wanting to act too decicivly.

I live in the U.S. and there are way to many fat people here.
Altho that may be true we got tons of hot pop stars and ?actresses? and many hot girls that arn't famous. so really that pic does the US no good what so ever

Errr... tricky question... The US would probably win the main military battle, but I don't think they would be able to hold Europe for very long... If an American occupation would occure then things would get ugly very fast for the US soldiers, kind of like Iraq...

On the other hand, if this attack would happen 10 or 20 years from now, the EU might have been able to build a army that would be able to withstand a war with the US.

The EU, cos the US would kill themselves off in a 'friendly fire' incident. Being British, I do prefer the US to the EU, who are tryin to take over our country, but the EU would win. And we could probably get the middle east on you, too. Though they dont like us either :( hehe.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Altho that may be true we got tons of hot pop stars and ?actresses? and many hot girls that arn't famous. so really that pic does the US no good what so ever

You forget it was a joke :)

It is not as if we don't have really fat people over here either (Pavarote (?) )

We (America) would get our monkey-a**es whupped. Because quite frankly military stragedy has studily declined since our victory against britain way back when. *Flips through news channels* And all they have to do is turn on an American news station to get all our weapon stats and plans for attack/defense.

The EU, cos the US would kill themselves off in a 'friendly fire' incident

Kind of like this?:

"When the British fire the Germans duck. When the Germans fire the British duck and when the Americans fire EVERYONE ducks"
- Random quote from WW2

Having actually been a member of the USMC, I can honestly say, that your all forgetting the original question, it did not imply help from other nation's. And Make no mistake, we simply have more bomb's than they do. And, the EU is a conglomeration of several different nation's who rarely, and i mean rarely see eye to eye, let alone enough to unite fast enough to defend themselves from us. Cause let's face fact's, We have well over 500 US military bases in the EU and how many do they have over here? None. So before all you back pocket general's out there go dissmissing the US as being lazy, and or poor military strategist's. I really think you need to grow up, and actually spend some time getting to know not only our history, but also what it's like to actually have to fight to survive.

Having actually been a member of the USMC, I can honestly say, that your all forgetting the original question, it did not imply help from other nation's. And Make no mistake, we simply have more bomb's than they do. And, the EU is a conglomeration of several different nation's who rarely, and i mean rarely see eye to eye, let alone enough to unite fast enough to defend themselves from us. Cause let's face fact's, We have well over 500 US military bases in the EU and how many do they have over here? None. So before all you back pocket general's out there go dissmissing the US as being lazy, and or poor military strategist's. I really think you need to grow up, and actually spend some time getting to know not only our history, but also what it's like to actually have to fight to survive.

An American trying to tell Europeans what its like to "have to fight to survive"??? Id laugh my arse off if i didnt think you were actually serious. Most Europeans are only 2 or 3 generations removed from the people that fought and died in the millions in WW2. America hasnt had any invasions or internal strife since 1865.

Back on point. You do have several hundred (ill take your word on 500+) bases in Europe, and not a 1 of them is capable of autarky. You have thousands of troops, with no indpendant resupply or reenforcemtns available, deployed in countries where they are outnumbered and cut off. If a war broke out, even a conventional one rather than a NBC one, then the yankee tropps already in Europe are as good as dead almost immediately.

In a conventional war, Americas navy is too strong for Europe to be able to launch an invasion. But i seriously doubt whether America would be able to launch a successful invasion, or hold any ground, in Europe against their combined land forces.

The amount of invasions the US has had doesn't even matter. We have more men and women over here that will actually lay their life on the line to fight for their country.

How many troops do we have in operation right now?

And how many troops do you have? Even though Blair FULLY backs the U.S.A

And our Navy?

What about our Air Force?

And the Marines who are expeditionary, and amphibious.

No one will win... The world will blow up and everyone will die.

noone. both would be forced to a stalemate

The real question should be, what side will the military suppliers side with? Boeing would hopefully side with America, and Airbus would probably side with the EU, DuPont would sell to both armies, General Electric and General Motors would most likely side with America, whereas the recently bought Daimler-Chrysler and... some Euro-electric company would side with the EU. Regardless, if you honestly wanted to know, the combined forces of America (North, Central, and South America) would DOMINATE the EU, people are all peace-mongerers over there, and there would be no military to invade America. A nuclear war would be different however, in which case we have MAD.

America 'cause China would help us :P

Why do you think China will help you?
US and China are not very close.

I like that picture its funny :lol: not all the gals are like that. And I have to say it seems women here and in europe are pretty slutty to which I dislike. Anyway it'd be a close one honestly but I'd say the USA would win because of our military superiority though we would have less allies and possibly less other things to. I'm not sure as I said probably close. hehe the two competing and annoying empires

We're allies, what's the point of debating this? Its like comparing two runners on the same team, it doen't matter who wins... :roll:

OK, yeah, I understand, its fun... :P

Regardless, if you honestly wanted to know, the combined forces of America (North, Central, and South America) would DOMINATE the EU, people are all peace-mongerers over there, and there would be no military to invade America. A nuclear war would be different however, in which case we have MAD.

Why should Canada side with the U.S. we insult them all the time and of course there is Bush with his big mouth talking trash against them? Mexico might go with us or it might go neutral. As for the rest: Central and South America, name three things that would incline them to hang with us. Plus have you given any thought as to why Europe wants peace? They've had to rebuild after two World Wars. America has only had a real reconstruction once after the Civil War. Which is why Americans freaked after 9/11. Besides which pretty much every country but America has a plan for nuclear attack. So if it does come down to that America will be the one on the short end of the stick.

US will kill off all their own troops during the war because of friendly fire!
j/k

But seriously, I think EU would win, or a least they wont lose.
cause don't forget who do you think Russia will side with if they join the war,
and they have the second largest army in the world.

Does anyone actually "win" wars anymore? Or did they ever, for that matter?

Mind you, the US could finish off the French in seconds. But Britain and Germany could hold the US and beat them. We all know how long it takes to defeat the Germans. And does Russia count as the EU for this conflict?

Mind you, the US could finish off the French in seconds. But Britain and Germany could hold the US and beat them. We all know how long it takes to defeat the Germans. And does Russia count as the EU for this conflict?

Mind you, the US could finish off the French in seconds. But Britain and Germany could hold the US and beat them. We all know how long it takes to defeat the Germans. And does Russia count as the EU for this conflict?

Germany has NO ARMY at all. Don't look back at WW2
Even though Russia is not part of EU
its close allies with France and Germany. And don't think France has a weak
army, its very strong, they do have a weak spot which is Paris.

It would be rather tough. If there are no nuclear weapons, then I don't think Europe would be able to knock out the USA, due to the fact that the US Navy is so dominant. That being said, launching a large cross-Atlantic invasion and supplying it against the combined forces of the EU would be hard, although I'd imagine if the USA could secure Ireland, the leap frog to Britian would be feasable. After that, I'd imagine it would be a slow process for the USA to win - marked by strategic bombing - although if the USA could maintain air superiority it would eventually win. If they didn't, it would probably be a stalemate.

You cant get to Paris because they are actually incapable of fighting and give up. They lost to the vietnamese before the US did, in a conventional battle with the Viet Minh. All they do is insult people, especially the British, because we were better at them than everything. I suppose your right about Germany having no army.. Well we've got all of East Europe now because of EU expansion so that counter-acts that.

Europe.
The US seem to shoot eachother more than they shoot the enemy.

Its true. The British have manged to last the entire Iraq war without shooting themselves once.

That's a no brainer. America hands down. Why? Because the EU contains France, and we ALL know how well they fight during a war!

You cant get to Paris because they are actually incapable of fighting and give up. They lost to the vietnamese before the US did, in a conventional battle with the Viet Minh. All they do is insult people, especially the British, because we were better at them than everything. I suppose your right about Germany having no army.. Well we've got all of East Europe now because of EU expansion so that counter-acts that.

You do know that one of your kings was french don't you?

That's a no brainer. America hands down. Why? Because the EU contains France, and we ALL know how well they fight during a war!

Yeah because any country could practically fight the whole of Europe and nearly win. :roll:

You cant get to Paris because they are actually incapable of fighting and give up. They lost to the vietnamese before the US did, in a conventional battle with the Viet Minh. All they do is insult people, especially the British, because we were better at them than everything. I suppose your right about Germany having no army.. Well we've got all of East Europe now because of EU expansion so that counter-acts that.

You do know that one of your kings was french don't you?

Just one of them?

In the infinite wisdom of our monarchs they prefer to 'keep it in the family' as it were.

That's a no brainer. America hands down. Why? Because the EU contains France, and we ALL know how well they fight during a war!

You mean the same France that invaded England, won wars against Spain and Germany, fought valiently in the Great War and helped the newborn nation of the USA gain Independence.

That France?

The United States would win, by nuking every single European city. The victory parades would be short lived, however, when every other nuclear power decides that the US is a threat and launches even more missiles, and then it doesn't matter who won the US-EU war since the survivors of the nuclear war must survive a nuclear winter... :(

Its true. The British have manged to last the entire Iraq war without shooting themselves once.

Not true unfortunately - one of our tankers failed to be able to tell the diffence between a Challenger II and a T60 and fired at one of his colleagues.

Still you have to look on the bright side, it showed the C2 gun can penetrate Chobham armour...

However the US A10 driivers still can't tell what a Warrior looks like. There was an incident of an A10 shooting up a Warrior in the Gulf War, so they instituted an eleborate system of identification marks to be able to tell any Coalition vehicle from the air.

Then another bloody A10 shoots up a Warrior...

The United States would win, by nuking every single European city. The victory parades would be short lived, however, when every other nuclear power decides that the US is a threat and launches even more missiles, and then it doesn't matter who won the US-EU war since the survivors of the nuclear war must survive a nuclear winter... :(

Aren't there some US nukes in Scotland ? :twisted:

Also if this war breaks out after (if ever) Star Wars project is finished, we may be OK, as in not as bad without it.

Errr... tricky question... The US would probably win the main military battle, but I don't think they would be able to hold Europe for very long... If an American occupation would occure then things would get ugly very fast for the US soldiers, kind of like Iraq...

On the other hand, if this attack would happen 10 or 20 years from now, the EU might have been able to build a army that would be able to withstand a war with the US.

Whoever said anything about occupation? If it doesn't work in Iraq, it won't work at all in Europe. If the US *had* to make war upon the EU as a matter of survival (why else would we attack them, no reason to), we would probably use a variation on the classical NBC sort of deal.

That's a no brainer. America hands down. Why? Because the EU contains France, and we ALL know how well they fight during a war!

You mean the same France that invaded England, won wars against Spain and Germany, fought valiently in the Great War and helped the newborn nation of the USA gain Independence.

That France?

You mean the same France that has become so enclosed and obsessed with themselves that they only survive on the faded glory of the past: Napoleon's dead; all the French did in WW1 is sit behind the Maginot Line and get snotty about their 'impenetrable' defense (which failed when Germany swept in from Belgium and Holland); the same France that lost WW2's Battle for France until they were saved by the British/Canadian/AMERICAN troops; and did less for the 13 colonies than a single Prussian did for the Continental Army?

That France?

That's a no brainer. America hands down. Why? Because the EU contains France, and we ALL know how well they fight during a war!

You mean the same France that invaded England, won wars against Spain and Germany, fought valiently in the Great War and helped the newborn nation of the USA gain Independence.

That France?

Owned.

That's a no brainer. America hands down. Why? Because the EU contains France, and we ALL know how well they fight during a war!

You mean the same France that invaded England, won wars against Spain and Germany, fought valiently in the Great War and helped the newborn nation of the USA gain Independence.

That France?

You mean the same France that has become so enclosed and obsessed with themselves that they only survive on the faded glory of the past: Napoleon's dead; all the French did in WW1 is sit behind the Maginot Line and get snotty about their 'impenetrable' defense (which failed when Germany swept in from Belgium and Holland); the same France that lost WW2's Battle for France until they were saved by the British/Canadian/AMERICAN troops; and did less for the 13 colonies than a single Prussian did for the Continental Army?

That France?

How did they sit behind a wall that didn't exist ? :shock:

From the BBC
The War of Independence plays such an important part in American popular ideology that references to it are especially prone to exaggeration and oversimplification. And two uncomfortable truths about it - the fact that it was a civil war (perhaps 100,000 loyalists fled abroad at its end), and that it was also a world war (the Americans could scarcely have won without French help) - are often forgotten
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/state/empire/rebels_redcoats_01.shtml
Now I'm not saying that the BBC is perfect (the Hutton report 'proved' that), but somehow I think it is more reliable than someone I met on an internet forum.

You make it sound like the French did nothing in WWII, you do realise that the French Resistence existed right?

The Eu and USA would never go to war because they they would both know it would be suicide. But if so the EU would win, america has allready got to many enemies. Who would want to be on the side that bombs innocent civilians? But a war between the EU and the USA would be the end of the world, as we know it.

That's a no brainer. America hands down. Why? Because the EU contains France, and we ALL know how well they fight during a war!

You mean the same France that invaded England, won wars against Spain and Germany, fought valiently in the Great War and helped the newborn nation of the USA gain Independence.

That France?

You mean the same France that has become so enclosed and obsessed with themselves that they only survive on the faded glory of the past: Napoleon's dead; all the French did in WW1 is sit behind the Maginot Line and get snotty about their 'impenetrable' defense (which failed when Germany swept in from Belgium and Holland); the same France that lost WW2's Battle for France until they were saved by the British/Canadian/AMERICAN troops; and did less for the 13 colonies than a single Prussian did for the Continental Army?

That France?

But of course.

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/350/euro_vs_america.jpg


:shock: The American picture is just scary. :shock:

"You make it sound like the French did nothing in WWII, you do realise that the French Resistence existed right?"

I also realise the unarmed Jews resisted the Nazis harder than the French.

"You make it sound like the French did nothing in WWII, you do realise that the French Resistence existed right?"

I also realise the unarmed Jews resisted the Nazis harder than the French.

How do you qualify such a statement?

Deutschland würde Kolben aber maby nicht soviel Amerika maby Alaska oder Hawaii treten

"You make it sound like the French did nothing in WWII, you do realise that the French Resistence existed right?"

I also realise the unarmed Jews resisted the Nazis harder than the French.

How do you qualify such a statement?

By putting cotton wool in your ears, blinders on you eyes and a feather up your arse to keep the pixies out.

"You make it sound like the French did nothing in WWII, you do realise that the French Resistence existed right?"

I also realise the unarmed Jews resisted the Nazis harder than the French.

How do you qualify such a statement?

By putting cotton wool in your ears, blinders on you eyes and a feather up your arse to keep the pixies out.

That sounds like a Saturday night to me!

Well, militaryily speaking the united states has a much better miltary overall. We have the most powerful navy, not even the rest of the world combined can match it. Our airforce is also the best, no one in the EU has strategic bombers like the B-52. Plus our carriers

http://globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

We also spend about as much as the rest of the world combined.

(I am a left leaning-moderate I am not an arrogant american asshole, I'm looking at this from a real view)

Regardless, if you honestly wanted to know, the combined forces of America (North, Central, and South America) would DOMINATE the EU, people are all peace-mongerers over there, and there would be no military to invade America. A nuclear war would be different however, in which case we have MAD.

Why should Canada side with the U.S. we insult them all the time and of course there is Bush with his big mouth talking trash against them? Mexico might go with us or it might go neutral. As for the rest: Central and South America, name three things that would incline them to hang with us. Plus have you given any thought as to why Europe wants peace? They've had to rebuild after two World Wars. America has only had a real reconstruction once after the Civil War. Which is why Americans freaked after 9/11. Besides which pretty much every country but America has a plan for nuclear attack. So if it does come down to that America will be the one on the short end of the stick.

The poll said America, and that's the reason that I assume that _American_ countries would side with _America_

just thinking, when was the last time america won a war?

World War 2, because that was the last war that we actually were engaged in.

World War 2, because that was the last war that we actually were engaged in.

what?

World War 2, because that was the last war that we actually were engaged in.

???????????????????????

The last war that the United States actually entered into was World War 2. To my knowledge the Allies won that war. So, the United States won the last war we were actually in.

(Got more experience and some of the greatest minds in the world)

You don't need experience or great minds to press a button.

The last war that the United States actually entered into was World War 2. To my knowledge the Allies won that war. So, the United States won the last war we were actually in.

I think we lost the War on Drugs.

The last war that the United States actually entered into was World War 2. To my knowledge the Allies won that war. So, the United States won the last war we were actually in.

have you been in a coma for 50 years?

The war on drugs is a metaphor the United States never declared war on drugs...

The last war that the United States actually entered into was World War 2. To my knowledge the Allies won that war. So, the United States won the last war we were actually in.

have you been in a coma for 50 years?

No, I've taken a few high school history classes though...

The war on drugs is a metaphor the United States never declared war on drugs...

June 17, 1971.

The war on drugs is a metaphor the United States never declared war on drugs...

so vietnam is a metaphor to?
iraq dosnt actually exist?
afganistan is a figment of my imagination?
the cold war was just a skiing trip?
bosnia was just a flight in a private jet?

The last war that the United States actually entered into was World War 2. To my knowledge the Allies won that war. So, the United States won the last war we were actually in.

have you been in a coma for 50 years?

No, I've taken a few high school history classes though...

how?
did they wheel you in on a gurney?

Declarations of war in the United States

Of the many conflicts waged by the United States, there have been six declared wars since the formal independence of the country.

* The First Barbary War 1801-1805
* The War of 1812 1812 - 1814
* The Mexican-American War 1846-1848
* The Spanish-American War 1898
* The First World War 1917 - 1918
* The Second World War 1941 - 1945

There have been many conflicts fought by the United States without a declaration of war - but few have been long enough or formal enough to necessitate formal declarations. Among some of the major undeclared wars of the United States are the following ten conflicts.

* The Florida Seminole Wars 1817 - 1858
* The American Civil War 1861 - 1865 (against the Confederate States of America)
* The Mexican border Punitive Expedition 1917 - 1921
* The Korean War 1950 - 1953 (against North Korea)
* The Vietnam War 1964 - 1972 (against North Vietnam)
* The First Gulf War 1991 (against Iraq)
* The War on Drugs 1980s-Present
* The Kosovo War (against Yugoslavia)
* The War on Terror 2001-Present
* Operation Enduring Freedom (against Afghanistan) 2001
* The Second Gulf War (against Iraq) 2003

Courtesy http://www.fact-index.com/d/de/declaration_of_war.html

but you said that america hasnt entered into these wars, now your saying they are

what are you trying to get across?

Of the many conflicts waged by the United States, there have been six _declared_wars_ since the formal independence of the country.

I'm saying of the last war we were in, we won, in response to your question, what was the last war the United States has won? or something to that nature.

a war dosnt have to be declared to be a war, thats just a courtesy

but how did america not declare war in some of those later ones?

i remember bush telling hussain to leave iraq or there would be a war, and thats just one example

Of the many conflicts waged by the United States, there have been six _declared_wars_ since the formal independence of the country.

I'm saying of the last war we were in, we won, in response to your question, what was the last war the United States has won? or something to that nature.

the last war you were in was afghanistan and iraq, there still going on, did you not notice?

When someone says war. I think of a war. In the United States constitution it outlines what is and isn't a war. The vietnam conflict was not legally a war. Neither was the Yugoslav, nor was the first Gulf, Afghanistan, or the second Gulf. These were conflicts. However had we actually gone to war (state of war) then I believe we would have won them. The United States doesn't go to war on a president's whim. Conflicts happen on a presidential whim.

When someone says war. I think of a war. In the United States constitution it outlines what is and isn't a war. The vietnam conflict was not legally a war. Neither was the Yugoslav, nor was the first Gulf, Afghanistan, or the second Gulf. These were conflicts. However had we actually gone to war (state of war) then I believe we would have won them. The United States doesn't go to war on a president's whim. Conflicts happen on a presidential whim.

Hasn't the US been a state of War since WWII? therefore, it is impossible for there to be a state of war before the first one is announced.

Also by using you logic, Hitler only ever fought the US.

your constitutions defenition is very nice but it dosn actually matter in deciding what is and what isnt a war

this is getting boring

When someone says war. I think of a war. In the United States constitution it outlines what is and isn't a war. The vietnam conflict was not legally a war. Neither was the Yugoslav, nor was the first Gulf, Afghanistan, or the second Gulf. These were conflicts. However had we actually gone to war (state of war) then I believe we would have won them. The United States doesn't go to war on a president's whim. Conflicts happen on a presidential whim.

Hasn't the US been a state of War since WWII? therefore, it is impossible for there to be a state of war before the first one is announced.

Also by using you logic, Hitler only ever fought the US.

No, the U.S. has not been at a state of war since WWII I have no clue where you got that from.
(However, we have been at a state of martial law since WWII and the japanese internment fiasco)

Hitler did not only fight the U.S. He fought against anyone that was not Aryan. He was allies with the Italians and Japanese during the war, but that was simply a marriage of convenience.

Are you preparing for WW3 or something?

Nope, just trying to bring a factual basis to the forum.

When someone says war. I think of a war. In the United States constitution it outlines what is and isn't a war. The vietnam conflict was not legally a war. Neither was the Yugoslav, nor was the first Gulf, Afghanistan, or the second Gulf. These were conflicts. However had we actually gone to war (state of war) then I believe we would have won them. The United States doesn't go to war on a president's whim. Conflicts happen on a presidential whim.

Hasn't the US been a state of War since WWII? therefore, it is impossible for there to be a state of war before the first one is announced.

Also by using you logic, Hitler only ever fought the US.

No, the U.S. has not been at a state of war since WWII I have no clue where you got that from.
(However, we have been at a state of martial law since WWII and the japanese internment fiasco)

Hitler did not only fight the U.S. He fought against anyone that was not Aryan. He was allies with the Italians and Japanese during the war, but that was simply a marriage of convenience.

Well the US was the only country that he declared war on.

I'm not sure if anyone can remember but incase you can't I will jog your memories. The US saved the Europeans butts. If we didn't you'd all be saying Heil Hitler. Also we are the ones that had to not only save your butts but had to rebuild Europe and give money(The Marshell Plan). Now the US is far supieror in Millitary technology it isn't funny. So if the question is ask who would win Europe or US I say of course the US.

P.S. The US has some of the hottest chicks in the world incase you didn't notice.

Nope, just trying to bring a factual basis to the forum.

It's the general forum. The mind set of most people who come in here is willies and poo (not together.... of course). Or is that just me?

Na, only kidding. Well, not about the willy and poo thing. Anyway, I should probably shut up about now.

Stupid american egotist, you give us all a bad name. Please try to support your comments with
-facts
or
-politeness

I'm not sure if anyone can remember but incase you can't I will jog your memories. The US saved the Europeans butts. If we didn't you'd all be saying Heil Hitler. Also we are the ones that had to not only save your butts but had to rebuild Europe and give money(The Marshell Plan). Now the US is far supieror in Millitary technology it isn't funny. So if the question is ask who would win Europe or US I say of course the US.

P.S. The US has some of the hottest chicks in the world incase you didn't notice.

We wouldn't be speaking German. You obviously don't know Britians 'flair' for language. 60 years would not be enough to make us speak it.

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/350/euro_vs_america.jpg

When someone says war. I think of a war. In the United States constitution it outlines what is and isn't a war. The vietnam conflict was not legally a war. Neither was the Yugoslav, nor was the first Gulf, Afghanistan, or the second Gulf. These were conflicts. However had we actually gone to war (state of war) then I believe we would have won them. The United States doesn't go to war on a president's whim. Conflicts happen on a presidential whim.

Hasn't the US been a state of War since WWII? therefore, it is impossible for there to be a state of war before the first one is announced.

Also by using you logic, Hitler only ever fought the US.

No, the U.S. has not been at a state of war since WWII I have no clue where you got that from.
(However, we have been at a state of martial law since WWII and the japanese internment fiasco)

Hitler did not only fight the U.S. He fought against anyone that was not Aryan. He was allies with the Italians and Japanese during the war, but that was simply a marriage of convenience.

Well the US was the only country that he declared war on.

Hitler alone declared war on both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. However once he allied himself with Italy and Japan he was at war with all the Allies (war laws and such).

PS. The fact that you saved Europe means nothing to me since my family isn't from there ;)

When someone says war. I think of a war. In the United States constitution it outlines what is and isn't a war. The vietnam conflict was not legally a war. Neither was the Yugoslav, nor was the first Gulf, Afghanistan, or the second Gulf. These were conflicts. However had we actually gone to war (state of war) then I believe we would have won them. The United States doesn't go to war on a president's whim. Conflicts happen on a presidential whim.

Hasn't the US been a state of War since WWII? therefore, it is impossible for there to be a state of war before the first one is announced.

Also by using you logic, Hitler only ever fought the US.

No, the U.S. has not been at a state of war since WWII I have no clue where you got that from.
(However, we have been at a state of martial law since WWII and the japanese internment fiasco)

Hitler did not only fight the U.S. He fought against anyone that was not Aryan. He was allies with the Italians and Japanese during the war, but that was simply a marriage of convenience.

Well the US was the only country that he declared war on.

Hitler alone declared war on both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. However once he allied himself with Italy and Japan he was at war with all the Allies (war laws and such).

No because Japan only declared war on the US and Italy always took Germanies lead.

Isn't 'war-laws' an oxymoron.

Italy declared war on Britain and France
Japan declared war on the U.S.
Germany declared war on the Soviet Union

Hence, Axis vs Allies...

PS. The fact that you saved Europe means nothing to me since my family isn't from there ;)

Don't go using that saving Europe thing.

Thanks for the last minute jumping in and trying to get all the glory. Well done.

PS. The fact that you saved Europe means nothing to me since my family isn't from there ;)

Don't go using that saving Europe thing.

Thanks for the last minute jumping in and trying to get all the glory. Well done.

I didn't use that. I was countering a point from an American that if it wasn't for them I would be saying "heil Hitler" now.

Italy declared war on Britain and France
Japan declared war on the U.S.
Germany declared war on the Soviet Union

Hence, Axis vs Allies...

Do you have anysources for these?

So are you saying that if someone declares war on you [the country] then it is war?

Italian declares war on Britain and France. http://www.brainyhistory.com/days/june_10.html
Japanese declare war (through an act of war) on the United States at Pearl Harbor and are summarily declared war upon by the United States.
Germans declare war on the Soviet Union... this is pretty common knowledge.

I'm not saying that if a country declares war on a country, then the country that was declared war upon is at war. Although it usually works out that way... Especially in the world wars. But the Japanse, Italian, and German governments were legally at war with all the Allies when they created their tripartite alliance (Japanese, German, and Italian war laws)

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

Italian declares war on Britain and France. http://www.brainyhistory.com/days/june_10.html
Japanese declare war (through an act of war) on the United States at Pearl Harbor and are summarily declared war upon by the United States.
Germans declare war on the Soviet Union... this is pretty common knowledge.

I'm not saying that if a country declares war on a country, then the country that was declared war upon is at war. Although it usually works out that way... Especially in the world wars. But the Japanse, Italian, and German governments were legally at war with all the Allies when they created their tripartite alliance (Japanese, German, and Italian war laws)

So what, exactly is an act of war

An entire government behind an act with the intent of instigating a war.

An entire government behind an act with the intent of instigating a war.
Sp then, what is a war?

An entire government behind an act with the intent of instigating a war.
Sp then, what is a war?

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties

works for me, no need for declarations, just two large entities banging it out

A war is a culmination of battles that ends in one country's surrender or a truce.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done
What the hell does Iraq have to do with this? It's a fucking sideshow, we're not committing anything like our full effort to it. If we fought a total war against the EU, we'd smash them. We're talking about total war, not a war against guerillas. The USA is quite adept at winning in conventional warfare. America's main problem is a lack of resolve and willpower. If we were to take off the kid's gloves, we could smash the Iraqi insurgency with ease.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done
What the hell does Iraq have to do with this? It's a f--- sideshow, we're not committing anything like our full effort to it. If we fought a total war against the EU, we'd smash them. We're talking about total war, not a war against guerillas. The USA is quite adept at winning in conventional warfare. America's main problem is a lack of resolve and willpower. If we were to take off the kid's gloves, we could smash the Iraqi insurgency with ease.

if if if, but you never do

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done
What the hell does Iraq have to do with this? It's a f--- sideshow, we're not committing anything like our full effort to it. If we fought a total war against the EU, we'd smash them. We're talking about total war, not a war against guerillas. The USA is quite adept at winning in conventional warfare. America's main problem is a lack of resolve and willpower. If we were to take off the kid's gloves, we could smash the Iraqi insurgency with ease.

if if if, but you never do

Cuz we've got too many hippies in office! :wink:

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done
What the hell does Iraq have to do with this? It's a f--- sideshow, we're not committing anything like our full effort to it. If we fought a total war against the EU, we'd smash them. We're talking about total war, not a war against guerillas. The USA is quite adept at winning in conventional warfare. America's main problem is a lack of resolve and willpower. If we were to take off the kid's gloves, we could smash the Iraqi insurgency with ease.

It is all well and good to say that the US will win in all the conventional battles. However, this is known, which is why people go in for guerilla tactics.


TO: Don Cheecheeo.

Do you mean like various conflicts during the past 50 years?

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?


As far as I know, the U.S. has as much experiance with war as the EU does. I doubt people in power in the EU have been living since WW2, have they? Didn't think so.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done
What the hell does Iraq have to do with this? It's a f--- sideshow, we're not committing anything like our full effort to it. If we fought a total war against the EU, we'd smash them. We're talking about total war, not a war against guerillas. The USA is quite adept at winning in conventional warfare. America's main problem is a lack of resolve and willpower. If we were to take off the kid's gloves, we could smash the Iraqi insurgency with ease.


if if if, but you never do

Cuz we've got too many hippies in office! :wink:

yeh, i hate those damn neo con hippies

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.

Conceptualists: No, not those because those are not wars in any way shape or form, the war on drugs is just stronger domestic forces trying to impede the massive inflow of drugs into our country. The Gulf wars were attacks on a government that the administrations believed were terrorists, and the conflicts in the former Soviet states were a president trying to do what he though was the right thing. I'm bowing out of this for now, nice talking to you Conceptualists and Rachnia. It was a good debate.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done
What the hell does Iraq have to do with this? It's a f--- sideshow, we're not committing anything like our full effort to it. If we fought a total war against the EU, we'd smash them. We're talking about total war, not a war against guerillas. The USA is quite adept at winning in conventional warfare. America's main problem is a lack of resolve and willpower. If we were to take off the kid's gloves, we could smash the Iraqi insurgency with ease.

if if if, but you never do
We were talking about a total war between the EU and USA. That means nukes and chemical weapons. The scenario is clearly intended to be discussed in relation to the EU and USA absent the normal attention to whining neo-hippy scumbags that constantly undermine our war effort(s).
America's primary problem in Iraq is lack of a motivating factor to allow the military the political latitude to operate against the Iraqi terrorists with maximum force. America's essentially a reactionary force, and always has been. However, once America's will has been galvanized, she's unstoppable. It's just that such a thing is rather difficult to effectuate.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.

are you american?
you compleatly misssed the most obvious piece of sarcasm i have ever written
how could anyone actually belive that the US "wrapped that up nicely"

your getting off lightly coz its hard to read sarcasm, lucky

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.

For America the war went easy, it could of been a distaster.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.

*is American*

newsflash, excessive use of nuclear weaponry causes global catastrophe

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.


France has enough nukes to blow up the world in a few minutes. it doesn't matter how many nukes you have, its if you have enough nuikes. Think

For America the war went easy, it could of been a distaster.
What? Iraq? Doubtful. Dealing with guerillas has always been a problem for the USA (lack of will, as I stated above), but in conventional warfare we're second-to-none. That's why the Iraqis turned to terrorism, they knew that they hadn't any chance of defeating us conventionally.

For America the war went easy, it could of been a distaster.
What? Iraq? Doubtful. Dealing with guerillas has always been a problem for the USA (lack of will, as I stated above), but in conventional warfare we're second-to-none. That's why the Iraqis turned to terrorism, they knew that they hadn't any chance of defeating us conventionally.

ofcourse!

PS. The fact that you saved Europe means nothing to me since my family isn't from there ;)

Don't go using that saving Europe thing.

Thanks for the last minute jumping in and trying to get all the glory. Well done.I wasn't going to comment in this thread until I saw this ungrateful bastard rear his head.

Four years is not the last minute. And let's not forget the Lend-Lease program. We even had volunteer pilots going to England before we were officially involved.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.

*is American*

newsflash, excessive use of nuclear weaponry causes global catastrophe
Newsflash, your stupid claims of nuclear winter arising from nuclear war have been proven as bullshit. Anyhow, that was only in regard to an all out USA-USSR exchange.

France has enough nukes to blow up the world in a few minutes. it doen't matter how many nukes you have, its if you have enough nuikes. Think
What? What the fuck are you talking about? Are you a moron, or some such? Why don't YOU think for a minute. How many nukes you have DOES matter, nukes aren't some magical weapon that when employed will press the self-destruct button for the planet. France doesn't have enough nukes to "blow up the world". Their aren't enough nuclear weapons on Earth to end all life on Earth, not even close. They're insufficient by many orders of magnitude.

You've obviously been brainwashed by the scare-mongers, I suppose I oughtn't to bother.

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.


France has enough nukes to blow up the world in a few minutes. it doesn't matter how many nukes you have, its if you have enough nuikes. ThinkThey have 400 short range nukes. They wouldn't do much. They couldn't even hit the US.

For America the war went easy, it could of been a distaster.
What? Iraq? Doubtful. Dealing with guerillas has always been a problem for the USA (lack of will, as I stated above), but in conventional warfare we're second-to-none. That's why the Iraqis turned to terrorism, they knew that they hadn't any chance of defeating us conventionally.

im not sure "conventional warfare" exists any more, no one is going to order thousands of men to charge the enemy with bayonettes

so basically what your saying is that the US is the best in the world at an outdated form of warfare, im sure some country has the best archers in the world but thats not really going to help them is is?

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.

*is American*

newsflash, excessive use of nuclear weaponry causes global catastrophe
Newsflash, your stupid claims of nuclear winter arising from nuclear war have been proven as bullshit. Anyhow, that was only in regard to an all out USA-USSR exchange.

France has enough nukes to blow up the world in a few minutes. it doen't matter how many nukes you have, its if you have enough nuikes. Think
What? What the f--- are you talking about? Are you a moron, or some such? Why don't you think for a minute. How many nukes you have DOES matter, nukes aren't some magical weapon that when employed will press the self-destruct button for the planet. France doesn't have enough nukes to "blow up the world". Their aren't enough nuclear weapons on Earth to end life on Earth. They're insufficient by many orders of magnitude.


You should start thinking, It doesn't mean Earth is going to blow up, but humanity wil die.

at least most of it

*bangs head on the wall*

I think the Leo dude said what I needed to say

For America the war went easy, it could of been a distaster.
What? Iraq? Doubtful. Dealing with guerillas has always been a problem for the USA (lack of will, as I stated above), but in conventional warfare we're second-to-none. That's why the Iraqis turned to terrorism, they knew that they hadn't any chance of defeating us conventionally.

im not sure "conventional warfare" exists any more, no one is going to order thousands of men to charge the enemy with bayonettes

so basically what your saying is that the US is the best in the world at an outdated form of warfare, im sure some country has the best archers in the world but thats not really going to help them is is?
What the hell are you talking about, idiot? We haven't charged anyone with bayonettes for ages. Conventional warfare isn't outmoded, it happens many times a decade, for Christ's sake. So you're saying only terrorist tactics are relevant, right? Your strawman tactics and insanely correlated 'parallels' are just sad, learn something about the world before you speak.

Dolphins, you are crossing the line to flamebait/actual flaming.

<---Not a mod, but would like to be in times like this

You should start thinking, It doesn't mean Earth is going to blow up, but humanity wil die.

Umm, yeah right. We don't even have enough nukes to wipe out every human settlement. If the USA were to nuke the EU, it'd be almost entirely one-sided. YOU need to start thinking, and stop listening to these idiots that say "If you use nukes, everyone will die!!!!oneone!" Even during the '80s, global deaths for an all out NATO-WARPAC exchange were estimated at about 2 billion. A huge number, surely, but far from all of humanity. Europe would be vaporized by the USA, and maybe the UK would manage to get a few East Coast cities, but most of humanity would survive.

They have 400 short range nukes. They wouldn't do much. They couldn't even hit the US.
You know that, I know that, but most people believe that the use of one nuke's going to kill all life on Earth or some such, simply by virtue of the weapon being a nuke. Apparently they have magical space powers imparted unto them by aliens.

For America the war went easy, it could of been a distaster.
What? Iraq? Doubtful. Dealing with guerillas has always been a problem for the USA (lack of will, as I stated above), but in conventional warfare we're second-to-none. That's why the Iraqis turned to terrorism, they knew that they hadn't any chance of defeating us conventionally.

im not sure "conventional warfare" exists any more, no one is going to order thousands of men to charge the enemy with bayonettes

so basically what your saying is that the US is the best in the world at an outdated form of warfare, im sure some country has the best archers in the world but thats not really going to help them is is?
What the hell are you talking about, idiot? We haven't charged anyone with bayonettes for ages. Conventional warfare isn't outmoded, it happens many times a decade, for Christ's sake. So you're saying only terrorist tactics are relevant, right? Your strawman tactics and insanely correlated 'parallels' are just sad, learn something about the world before you speak.

let him say whatever he wants colodia,

what are you saying conventional warfare is? id say its when two armies of reletivly and similarly large size attack each other, usually on flat ground

im not saying that modern warfare requires terrorism either, just that warfare changes over time and the US hasnt seemed to realise that, they are still geared up for the type of war i mentioned above
but when was the last time one of them was fought? ww2?

and on another note, go fuck yourself

WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.

*is American*

newsflash, excessive use of nuclear weaponry causes global catastrophe
Newsflash, your stupid claims of nuclear winter arising from nuclear war have been proven as bullshit. Anyhow, that was only in regard to an all out USA-USSR exchange.

France has enough nukes to blow up the world in a few minutes. it doen't matter how many nukes you have, its if you have enough nuikes. Think
What? What the f--- are you talking about? Are you a moron, or some such? Why don't you think for a minute. How many nukes you have DOES matter, nukes aren't some magical weapon that when employed will press the self-destruct button for the planet. France doesn't have enough nukes to "blow up the world". Their aren't enough nuclear weapons on Earth to end life on Earth. They're insufficient by many orders of magnitude.


You should start thinking, It doesn't mean Earth is going to blow up, but humanity wil die.
Umm, yeah right. We don't even have enough nukes to wipe out every human settlement. If the USA were to nuke the EU, it'd be almost entirely one-sided. YOU need to start thinking, and stop listening to these idiots that say "If you use nukes, everyone will die!!!!oneone!" Even during the '80s, global deaths for an all out NATO-WARPAC exchange were estimated at about 2 billion. A huge number, surely, but far from all of humanity. Europe would be vaporized by the USA, and maybe the UK would manage to get a few East Coast cities, but most of humanity would survive.


44 nukes is enough to blow up US, nuclear bomb in our days is the size of Heroshima, its much bigger, the heat that the explosion of a nuke produces is hotter than the sun. but worst of all you shouldnt forget radiation, that travels at least a thousand miles, depending on the wind.

[quote=Vi_cious_dolphins]WTF? Is this some kind of a joke? If that war were to happen today, the USA would win handily. Now, in 100 years, maybe it'll be different.

coz theve always done such a splendid job of it, like in iraq for example, wrapped that up nicely,
well done

the only reason the war in Iraq turned out to be well done is because Iraq has the
technology of the 60's, US is modern, and ofcourse dont forget Iraqi troops
were not very handy with guns.

But counrties like France (don't tell me thier weak, Americans just say that, cause they don't like the French), England, Russia (even thought they are no EU they will most prob. aid France) are very strong. So you guys can't say that US will win against EU.
And if a Nuclear war starts then its the end of all countries.
Bullshit and more bullshit. Why would the Russians aid the French, anyhow? Did you pull that out of your ass? As for nuclear war (between the EU and USA) being the end of all countries, that's bullshit as well. America has enough nuclear capacity to level the EU and suffer much less comparatively.

*is American*

newsflash, excessive use of nuclear weaponry causes global catastrophe
Newsflash, your stupid claims of nuclear winter arising from nuclear war have been proven as bullshit. Anyhow, that was only in regard to an all out USA-USSR exchange.

France has enough nukes to blow up the world in a few minutes. it doen't matter how many nukes you have, its if you have enough nuikes. Think
What? What the f--- are you talking about? Are you a moron, or some such? Why don't you think for a minute. How many nukes you have DOES matter, nukes aren't some magical weapon that when employed will press the self-destruct button for the planet. France doesn't have enough nukes to "blow up the world". Their aren't enough nuclear weapons on Earth to end life on Earth. They're insufficient by many orders of magnitude.


You should start thinking, It doesn't mean Earth is going to blow up, but humanity wil die.
Umm, yeah right. We don't even have enough nukes to wipe out every human settlement. If the USA were to nuke the EU, it'd be almost entirely one-sided. YOU need to start thinking, and stop listening to these idiots that say "If you use nukes, everyone will die!!!!oneone!" Even during the '80s, global deaths for an all out NATO-WARPAC exchange were estimated at about 2 billion. A huge number, surely, but far from all of humanity. Europe would be vaporized by the USA, and maybe the UK would manage to get a few East Coast cities, but most of humanity would survive.


44 nukes is enough to blow up US, nuclear bomb in our days is the size of Heroshima, its much bigger, the heat that the explosion of a nuke produces is hotter than the sun. but worst of all you shouldnt forget radiation, that travels at least a thousand miles, depending on the wind.[/quote
Complete bullshit, all of it. The actual (scaled) destructive power of a nuke varies according to the cube root of the multiplication factor for the weapons that are being compared. A weapon 64x as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb is only going to cause 4x more damage. 44 nukes? 44 nukes of typical size aren't even enough to wipe out the New York metropolitan area, let alone all of a nation the size of the USA. Anyhow, as for your radiation crap, radiation levels at Hiroshima returned to normal a month after the bomb blast. Not withstanding the fact that radiation effects would be largely harmless upon dispersal in the event of an air-burst. Ground bursts create much radioactive fallout, but airbursts are generally favored for soft targets such as cities (it's more energy efficient).

44 nukes is enough to blow up US, nuclear bomb in our days is the size of Heroshima, its much bigger, the heat that the explosion of a nuke produces is hotter than the sun. but worst of all you shouldnt forget radiation, that travels at least a thousand miles, depending on the wind.[/quote
Complete bullshit, all of it. The actual (scaled) destructive power of a nuke varies according to the cube root of the multiplication factor for the weapons that are being compared. A weapon 64x as powerful as the Hiroshima bomb is only going to cause 4x more damage. 44 nukes? 44 nukes of typical size aren't even enough to wipe out the New York metropolitan area, let alone all of a nation the size of the USA. Anyhow, as for your radiation crap, radiation levels at Hiroshima returned to normal a month after the bomb blast. Not withstanding the fact that radiation effects would be largely harmless upon dispersal in the event of an air-burst. Ground bursts create much radioactive fallout, but airbursts are generally favored for soft targets such as cities (it's more energy efficient).[/quote]

Holy sh+t, you guys, NUCLEAR bombs, 200 megaton bombs, are you crazy,
you think "44 nukes not enought to take out New York."
58 megaton bomb is 6,000 time more powerful than Hiroshema!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

Holy sh+t, you guys, NUCLEAR bombs, 200 megaton bombs, are you crazy,
you think "44 nukes not enought to take out New York."
58 megaton bomb is 6,000 time more powerful than Hiroshema!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

200 megaton bombs? A 200 megaton bomb has never been made, and is not at all amicable to standard methods of delivery. As for 58 megaton bombs, they're useless, as they can't be reliably delivered either.
I said 44 nukes (of deliverable size) aren't enough enough to take out the NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. Since English seems to be your second language, and you're not very adept at it, I'll forgive you that error. Your lack of knowledge as pertaining to nuclear weapons is obvious, I'll shoot down every comment you make. Bring it on. I see that you totally ignored my explanation of the actual power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should learn geometry as well as English.

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Holy sh+t, you guys, NUCLEAR bombs, 200 megaton bombs, are you crazy,
you think "44 nukes not enought to take out New York."
58 megaton bomb is 6,000 time more powerful than Hiroshema!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

200 megaton bombs? A 200 megaton bomb has never been made, and is not at all amicable to standard methods of delivery. As for 58 megaton bombs, they're useless, as they can't be reliably delivered either.
I said 44 nukes aren't powerful enough to take out the NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. Since English seems to be your second language, and you're not very adept at it, I'll forgive you that error. Your lack of knowledge as pertaining to nuclear weapons is obvious, I'll shoot down every comment you make. Bring it on. I see that you totally ignored my explanation of the actual power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should learn geometry as well as English.

still havnt come up with a reply to mine though

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

ah, your to serious
lol

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

ah, your to serious
lol

:roll: It;s 2:34, I lose my sense of humor at this time. Ask anyone

Besides...the obesity thing has gotten way to far and is, in fact, obsolete

Holy sh+t, you guys, NUCLEAR bombs, 200 megaton bombs, are you crazy,
you think "44 nukes not enought to take out New York."
58 megaton bomb is 6,000 time more powerful than Hiroshema!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

200 megaton bombs? A 200 megaton bomb has never been made, and is not at all amicable to standard methods of delivery. As for 58 megaton bombs, they're useless, as they can't be reliably delivered either.
I said 44 nukes aren't powerful enough to take out the NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. Since English seems to be your second language, and you're not very adept at it, I'll forgive you that error. Your lack of knowledge as pertaining to nuclear weapons is obvious, I'll shoot down every comment you make. Bring it on. I see that you totally ignored my explanation of the actual power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should learn geometry as well as English.

your a dumbA$$. you think that if you drop a nuke at a place with 100,000 people will kill them all, but if you add 10 million more, only a little more will die. DONT FORGET RADIATION, a nuke is not a TNT bomb, its several thousand times more powerful. Your forgeting 200 megatons! do exist, (although i think only in US and Russia)
think about the size of Hiroshima, its maybe like Kansas city, most of it was wiped out, then the radiation killed most of the rest, 58 megatons is 6000 more powerful, THINK
You should learn phisycs as well as geometry, statistics...ect.

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

ah, your to serious
lol

:roll: It;s 2:34, I lose my sense of humor at this time. Ask anyone

Besides...the obesity thing has gotten way to far and is, in fact, obsolete

its off topic, but ur still the us is still the fattest nation on the planet

Holy sh+t, you guys, NUCLEAR bombs, 200 megaton bombs, are you crazy,
you think "44 nukes not enought to take out New York."
58 megaton bomb is 6,000 time more powerful than Hiroshema!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

200 megaton bombs? A 200 megaton bomb has never been made, and is not at all amicable to standard methods of delivery. As for 58 megaton bombs, they're useless, as they can't be reliably delivered either.
I said 44 nukes aren't powerful enough to take out the NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. Since English seems to be your second language, and you're not very adept at it, I'll forgive you that error. Your lack of knowledge as pertaining to nuclear weapons is obvious, I'll shoot down every comment you make. Bring it on. I see that you totally ignored my explanation of the actual power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should learn geometry as well as English.

still havnt come up with a reply to mine though
Whoops. Missed it during my effort to educate Leo.

et him say whatever he wants colodia,

what are you saying conventional warfare is? id say its when two armies of reletivly and similarly large size attack each other, usually on flat ground

What the hell? That hasn't been "conventional warfare" for centuries. That's some crazy Napoleonic/Imperial British idea of warfare, not American.
im not saying that modern warfare requires terrorism either, just that warfare changes over time and the US hasnt seemed to realise that, they are still geared up for the type of war i mentioned above
but when was the last time one of them was fought? ww2?
Nope, Iraq II. The smashup of the Iraqi military was most certainly conventional warfare (though not to our Iraqi friends :) ). That worked extremely well. So, you're saying that the American military has no idea what it's doing, and is completely irrelevant to modern warfare? Wow.

and on another note, go f--- yourself
Nah, go fuck yourself, punk.

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

ah, your to serious
lol

:roll: It;s 2:34, I lose my sense of humor at this time. Ask anyone

Besides...the obesity thing has gotten way to far and is, in fact, obsolete

its off topic, but ur still the us is still the fattest nation on the planet
So....?

Holy sh+t, you guys, NUCLEAR bombs, 200 megaton bombs, are you crazy,
you think "44 nukes not enought to take out New York."
58 megaton bomb is 6,000 time more powerful than Hiroshema!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

200 megaton bombs? A 200 megaton bomb has never been made, and is not at all amicable to standard methods of delivery. As for 58 megaton bombs, they're useless, as they can't be reliably delivered either.
I said 44 nukes aren't powerful enough to take out the NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. Since English seems to be your second language, and you're not very adept at it, I'll forgive you that error. Your lack of knowledge as pertaining to nuclear weapons is obvious, I'll shoot down every comment you make. Bring it on. I see that you totally ignored my explanation of the actual power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should learn geometry as well as English.

your a dumbA$$. you think that if you drop a nuke at a place with 100,000 people will kill them all, but if you add 10 million more, only a little more will die. DONT FORGET RADIATION, a nuke is not a TNT bomb, its several thousand times more powerful. Your forgeting 200 megatons! do exist, (although i think only in US and Russia)
think about the size of Hiroshima, its maybe like Kansas city, most of it was wiped out, then the radiation killed most of the rest, 58 megatons is 6000 more powerful, THINK
You should learn phisycs as well as geometry, statistics...ect.
No, you fucking moron. You totally ignored what I wrote, get a fucking brain and learn some math, fool. No 58 megaton weapons have been deployed, most weapons are less than 1 megaton, as that's the most efficient power in regards to rocket throw weight capacity and targeting accuracy. Of course, being a fucking moron, you know nothing of such things, and can do nothing but reiterate your idiotic and tired points that I have already addressed. You THINK. This site has much information about nuclear weapons, read it and learn: http://www.fas.org/nuke/index.html

You people need to start thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Although I enjoyed this discussion, i have to go!

You people need to start thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Although I enjoyed this discussion, i have to go!
Yes, now that your idiotic points have been shot down, and you can't offer a rebuttal due to your glaringly obvious lack of knowledge, run. All you can offer are tired phrases that you've repeated multiple times, without providing supporting evidence or demonstrating any knowledge of the subject. Wise move, now run along.

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

ah, your to serious
lol

:roll: It;s 2:34, I lose my sense of humor at this time. Ask anyone

Besides...the obesity thing has gotten way to far and is, in fact, obsolete

its off topic, but ur still the us is still the fattest nation on the planet
So....?

so how is the comment obsolete?

You people need to start thinking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Although I enjoyed this discussion, i have to go!
Yes, now that your idiotic points have been shot down, and you can't offer a rebuttal due to your glaringly obvious lack of knowledge, run. All you can offer are tired phrases that you've repeated multiple times, without providing supporting evidence or demonstrating any knowledge of the subject. Wise move, now run along.

Moving along, the lion has successfully killed it's prey and is now enjoying the spoils of the kill.

What's that? It's looking at me...

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

ah, your to serious
lol

:roll: It;s 2:34, I lose my sense of humor at this time. Ask anyone

Besides...the obesity thing has gotten way to far and is, in fact, obsolete

its off topic, but ur still the us is still the fattest nation on the planet
So....?

so how is the comment obsolete?
not funny no more

U.S., by far.


And...what're these "great" minds of the EU you speak of?



I believe they're locked away in an tiny place called CERN.

pff, particle physics, surely the americans would be better at that since each one is composed of so many more particles then the average european

Nah, not funny

ah, your to serious
lol

:roll: It;s 2:34, I lose my sense of humor at this time. Ask anyone

Besides...the obesity thing has gotten way to far and is, in fact, obsolete

its off topic, but ur still the us is still the fattest nation on the planet
So....?

so how is the comment obsolete?
not funny no more

You, sire, are spamming

Holy sh+t, you guys, NUCLEAR bombs, 200 megaton bombs, are you crazy,
you think "44 nukes not enought to take out New York."
58 megaton bomb is 6,000 time more powerful than Hiroshema!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

200 megaton bombs? A 200 megaton bomb has never been made, and is not at all amicable to standard methods of delivery. As for 58 megaton bombs, they're useless, as they can't be reliably delivered either.
I said 44 nukes aren't powerful enough to take out the NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. Since English seems to be your second language, and you're not very adept at it, I'll forgive you that error. Your lack of knowledge as pertaining to nuclear weapons is obvious, I'll shoot down every comment you make. Bring it on. I see that you totally ignored my explanation of the actual power of nuclear weapons. Perhaps you should learn geometry as well as English.

still havnt come up with a reply to mine though
Whoops. Missed it during my effort to educate Leo.

et him say whatever he wants colodia,

what are you saying conventional warfare is? id say its when two armies of reletivly and similarly large size attack each other, usually on flat ground

What the hell? That hasn't been "conventional warfare" for centuries. That's some crazy Napoleonic/Imperial British idea of warfare, not American.
im not saying that modern warfare requires terrorism either, just that warfare changes over time and the US hasnt seemed to realise that, they are still geared up for the type of war i mentioned above
but when was the last time one of them was fought? ww2?
Nope, Iraq II. The smashup of the Iraqi military was most certainly conventional warfare (though not to our Iraqi friends :) ). That worked extremely well. So, you're saying that the American military has no idea what it's doing, and is completely irrelevant to modern warfare? Wow.

and on another note, go f--- yourself
Nah, go f--- yourself, punk.

as far as im aware 'conventional warfare' was used up till ww2, go have a look at some of rommels battles in paticular

and considering the shit the us military is in now, yeh id say they dont have a f u c k ing clue as to what their doing

There is actually a 100 megaton bomb which is called the Hydrogen bomb

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8976/nuke.htm

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/np6.cfm

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

here are several sites for you to look at!
read it carefully and enjoy, I guess all that Dolphin wrote was bull$hl+

There is actually a 100 megaton bomb which is called the Hydrogen bomb

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8976/nuke.htm

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/np6.cfm

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

here are several sites for you to look at!
read it carefully and enjoy, I guess all that Dolphin wrote was bull$hl+

well duh
hahaha

arnt verifiable facts nice

There is actually a 100 megaton bomb which is called the Hydrogen bomb

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8976/nuke.htm

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/np6.cfm

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

here are several sites for you to look at!
read it carefully and enjoy, I guess all that Dolphin wrote was bull$hl+

well duh
hahaha


arnt verifiable facts nice
I want DOLHIN TO READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is actually a 100 megaton bomb which is called the Hydrogen bomb

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/8976/nuke.htm

http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/np6.cfm

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html

here are several sites for you to look at!
read it carefully and enjoy, I guess all that Dolphin wrote was bull$hl+

well duh
hahaha


arnt verifiable facts nice
I want DOLHIN TO READ THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

maybe hes sulking, silly rabit

Dolphin is just a stupid moron now look whos running

Ok, this is ENOUGH

Rachnia, this is an official warning. Don't get drawn into flamefests.

Vi_cious_dolphins, you've had plenty of warnings; you're toast. Again.

Now, when you come across flaming, don't join in, report it in Moderation.
Don't flame flamers, don't spam spammers, don't feed the trolls.

Okay? :)

Now I'm locking this before it gets even more out of hand.