NationStates Jolt Archive

Who do you think would win if US and EU went to war against each other. Of course that isn't going to happen in real life, but we can imagine that Bush does soemthing stupid enough to anger EU, or get's the brilliant idea of invading EU.

Heres some condition's about the scenario:

England would be on EU's side becouse Bush has angered them so badly that they have forgotten the long lasted alliance.

-Therefore rest of the commonwealth would be neutral i think.

-Also Russia and Asian nation's would be neutral.

-Neither side would have theyr forces tied up in a third world country like Iraq.

-Neither side would use nukes, becouse both sides could destroy Earth a couple of hundred times.

-Also the Scenario would propably be Bush trying to invade Europe, since i can't see Europe being able to attack directly at US.

Any thought's?

England would be on EU's side becouse Bush has angered them so badly that they have forgotten the long lasted alliance.


Surely, the UK would be on the EU's side because it is part of the EU?

A tie. Without land borders, neither side could do much except bomb the others industrial facilities and draw it into a decades long war of attrition. Amphibious landings wouldn't do much good considering that there would be stiff resistance from both sides.

My only thought is "Not this crap again!". :headbang:

England would be on EU's side becouse Bush has angered them so badly that they have forgotten the long lasted alliance.

Not while Blair is still in office.

A tie. Without land borders, neither side could do much except bomb the others industrial facilities and draw it into a decades long war of attrition. Amphibious landings wouldn't do much good considering that there would be stiff resistance from both sides.

I can imagine lots of brits being really chuffed with a US invasion of britain, and joining them in fighting the french and germans, just like the old days.

Tied.

The EU would never use nukes because the US have about 3000 more nukes than anybody else.

If the US was smart (if Bush wasn't prez) then the US would tutle up in the country and make everybody infantry. So invading them would be out of the question.

and the UK would never join the EU. Mainly because its run by france. They want to make a country to counter balance the US. Never gonna happen, alot of people dislike the french.

How do your rolleyes on this?

And actually the EU is not run by France, its ran by the "Big 3" France, Germany and Britain. Also what is wrong with a power to counter balance the US, it is needed!

I can imagine lots of brits being really chuffed with a US invasion of britain, and joining them in fighting the french and germans, just like the old days.

Even so, imagine a landing force fighting the entire (fully mobilised, and economies geared for war production) might of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Netherlands, etc, etc. Impossible. There might be some land gained but they'd be beaten back and it would be bloody stalemate.

These sorts of hypothetical scenarios do little but stirr up the insane patriots into a long, pointless row about which country is 'better' than the other. Rarely is there an unbiased analysis of the potential of either side...

Why do we even need to dream up these scenarios anyway? Why can't we all just get along?

Actually, Britain would probably join the side that was attacked, knowing most people here. If America did attack, then Britain would side with the EU, and Vice Versa.

However, the downside would be huge economic recession for both sides, and the rest of the world, seeing as the two blocks account for about half of all world GDP. :/

Never gonna happen, alot of people dislike the french.

However, even more people dislike the US ;)

However, the downside would be huge economic recession for both sides, and the rest of the world, seeing as the two blocks account for about half of all world GDP. :/

Not really. WW2 lifted the USA out of the depression and after the war, what is arguably the greatest economic boom the world has ever known took place.

The US wouldn't have to invade, just bomb them with our vast superior aircraft. Bomb their major cities and industrial centers. We have the best long range bombers in the world, plus the best carriers. The EU would sue for peace.

Tied.

The EU would never use nukes because the US have about 3000 more nukes than anybody else.

Does it realy matter who has more nukes? I doubt it. If one side has 1000 and the other has 4000 I doubt all nukes would be used up before both sides are completely annihilated.

The US wouldn't have to invade, just bomb them with our vast superior aircraft. Bomb their major cities and industrial centers. We have the best long range bombers in the world, plus the best carriers. The EU would sue for peace.


Um you may what to re-evaluate ... while we arguably do have the best bombers the su29's (that most of western europe would still have) are one MEAN fighter. Can stand toe to toe with anything we have baring the f22 raptor

Is in World Cup Hockey. :D

Seriously. If the US and EU ever did get into a shooting war, this world is pretty much shot. Everybody loses. Why? Simple. The G8 nations (Nato Nations, whatever) are the biggest bloc of like-thinking nations on Earth!

Right now, yes there are some big disagreements. But I don't think that anyone really hates each other, ala the Cold War or even the Germany/French mutual hatred of the 20s.

If the US/UK/Canada/France/Germany/Poland/et al cannot get along, what chance is there for anywhere else on Earth?

Um you may what to re-evaluate ... while we arguably do have the best bombers the su29's (that most of western europe would still have) are one MEAN fighter. Can stand toe to toe with anything we have baring the f22 raptor

Never been proven in combat. su29's are Russian so are flawed in one way or another.

Plus you folks don't have stealth bombers.

The US wouldn't have to invade, just bomb them with our vast superior aircraft. Bomb their major cities and industrial centers. We have the best long range bombers in the world, plus the best carriers. The EU would sue for peace.

European aviation technology can match the US. Eg, Eurofighter and Rafale. In a war situation any bugs in these airframes would be quickly worked out and bombing runs similar to those recently experienced in Iraq would be impossible.

European (even frontline Russian) equipment is a lot more advanced than anything the US has fought in recent years...all Iraqi stuff in the '91 war was inferior export models...

Never been proven in combat. su29's are Russian so are flawed in one way or another.

Huh? Just because it's Russian, it shouldn't be underestimated.


Plus you folks don't have stealth bombers.

Doesn't mean that they couldn't be easily developed. We're talking a protracted war here...don't forget how far technology came in world war two.

European aviation technology can match the US. Eg, Eurofighter and Rafale. In a war situation any bugs in these airframes would be quickly worked out and bombing runs similar to those recently experienced in Iraq would be impossible.

European (even frontline Russian) equipment is a lot more advanced than anything the US has fought in recent years...all Iraqi stuff in the '91 war was inferior export models...

They might be able to match the US equipment, but they've never been used in combat. So it is a guess at best. You can't say they are as good until you actually use them in combat, that is the best test of all.

Never been proven in combat. su29's are Russian so are flawed in one way or another.


Ohhh because they are Russian they are flawed

Seriously (you are a candidate for that critical thinking class I proposed in another thread)

The s29 whooped everything we put up until the f22 (and has been proven … we got a hold of a few) in fact the f22 uses some Russian designed systems :) (amazing that we are borrowing designs off of a 20 year old Russian fighter

The su27 was a dependable fighter for YEARS putting down everything in its wake

The f16 and f18 didn’t have a chance in a dog fight with these boys … at missile range is where the us made up for it … not by better fighters but better missiles (even that was not much of a gap)

EU vs USA.....LMAO!

Plus you folks don't have stealth bombers.
Didn't these stealths got picked up by British radar?

the eu isn't a country and they aren't united it's an economic thing.they don't share militaries.Europe to untie???I doubt it.

European aviation technology can match the US. Eg, Eurofighter and Rafale. In a war situation any bugs in these airframes would be quickly worked out and bombing runs similar to those recently experienced in Iraq would be impossible.

European (even frontline Russian) equipment is a lot more advanced than anything the US has fought in recent years...all Iraqi stuff in the '91 war was inferior export models...


Now I am on your side lol don’t take this the wrong way

But the eurofighter was a JOKE lol … a vastly expensive plane that tried to be everything but in the end cant match anything

Good old saying “jack of all trades master of none”

Slow as hell for an air superiority fighter … doggie.

Low payload for both a missile platform and a strategic bomber


Only good thin on it was the electronics

They might be able to match the US equipment, but they've never been used in combat. So it is a guess at best. You can't say they are as good until you actually use them in combat, that is the best test of all.

I believe that the Rafale saw combat only this week in the Ivory Coast....

You make a valid point however. Yet much of the US inventory is ageing...for example the B-52. The F-22 and JSF are really all that is on offer now. Even the F-16 and F-18 for example are getting a bit grey on top.

I mean think about it.In Europe all countries are rich with history and I don't think they would give that up or would they???hm...

Ohhh because they are Russian they are flawed

Seriously (you are a candidate for that critical thinking class I proposed in another thread)

The s29 whooped everything we put up until the f22 (and has been proven … we got a hold of a few) in fact the f22 uses some Russian designed systems :) (amazing that we are borrowing designs off of a 20 year old Russian fighter

The su27 was a dependable fighter for YEARS putting down everything in its wake

The f16 and f18 didn’t have a chance in a dog fight with these boys … at missile range is where the us made up for it … not by better fighters but better missiles (even that was not much of a gap)

Dogfights don't really occur when you have long range radar systems, so missiles would win the day.

Didn't these stealths got picked up by British radar?


Depends on the bomber the f111a’s are getting old :)

Dogfights don't really occur when you have long range radar systems, so missiles would win the day.


Yes ... and the f29 has some awsome forward looking radar ... untill a recent upgrade they had about a mile range advantage

They are still damn close ... and remember we are competing with a 20 year old aircraft :) (though to be fair the f16 and 18 are old dogs themselfs)

Um you may what to re-evaluate ... while we arguably do have the best bombers the su29's (that most of western europe would still have) are one MEAN fighter. Can stand toe to toe with anything we have baring the f22 raptor
you can't forget the joint strike fighter. the F15 is also an incredible fighter and has never been shot down. the US's airforce is by far the best in the world, along with the navy. the air and sea battle would easilly be the US's. the US could launch cruise missles into EU's important industrial factories or into EU's leadership's buildings. also, the US troops have the most fighting expieriance, so they would have a definate advantage.

Didn't these stealths got picked up by British radar?


They may have been picked up by radar but guess what, the bombers will always get through. Unless of course you use nuclear blasts in the air to take them all out. You can shoot down some, but some will always make it to the targets.

Now I am on your side lol don’t take this the wrong way

But the eurofighter was a JOKE lol … a vastly expensive plane that tried to be everything but in the end cant match anything

Good old saying “jack of all trades master of none”

Slow as hell for an air superiority fighter … doggie.

Low payload for both a missile platform and a strategic bomber


Only good thin on it was the electronics

Yes, it has it's problems and i'm aware of that. In a war situation they'd be worked around, however. There was never much enthusiasm for the EF among partner countries...since France withdrew and designed the Rafale it kinda fell apart. In a hot-war situation, a similar aircraft would be created to address the shortcomings. The failure was (or at least, should be) an educational experience for the European militaries.

Yes, it has it's problems and i'm aware of that. In a war situation they'd be worked around, however. There was never much enthusiasm for the EF among partner countries...since France withdrew and designed the Rafale it kinda fell apart. In a hot-war situation, a similar aircraft would be created to address the shortcomings. The failure was (or at least, should be) an educational experience for the European militaries.


True but even so they are going to have to look into staying specialized … separate planes molded into a group role

Meaning don’t try to make a fighter that does everything and costs 80 percent more … make separate ones and use different combinations of the taskforce to give it a different impact

The only thing that the american army has experience in is running away when there is an explosion.

Germany has little military, mostly protected by *gasp* American forces. France's military has always been laughable, within modern times anyway. Poland and most Eastern European countries would side with the US. Italy... The last time Italy won anything was when their opponents had spears, and even that was on the second try. Spain and Portugal are far from the world powers they used to be. England, a fighter against the Euro, would most likely end up siding with the US as well.

Europe is still way too used to us being willing to fight for them.

The only thing that the american army has expeirience in is running away when there is an explosion.


um care to point out an instance where they have done more so then anyone else? or is this just needless waste of forum space?

The only thing that the american army has experience in is running away when there is an explosion.
Right... You're thinking of France. The US military doesn't run away.

you can't forget the joint strike fighter. the F15 is also an incredible fighter and has never been shot down. the US's airforce is by far the best in the world, along with the navy. the air and sea battle would easilly be the US's. the US could launch cruise missles into EU's important industrial factories or into EU's leadership's buildings. also, the US troops have the most fighting expieriance, so they would have a definate advantage.

Yes I think the US would have to place a few cruise missiles into the UN first, just to keep Koffi in line.

Those EU countrys could bring back the VI and VII and use them to strike at...oh nevermind.

The 2nd Polish Navy will have to replace their glass bottomed boats (which they use to keep their eyes on the 1st Polish Navy).

Germany has little military, mostly protected by *gasp* American forces.
Protected from what? Occuppied is the word your looking for.

Dogfights don't really occur when you have long range radar systems, so missiles would win the day.

False.

There are ways of counteracting that. Soviet Reserve AF doctrine called for using terrain features such as hills for example to mask radar emissions. When the US aircraft overflew, the vastly inferior MiG-21's (for example) could still get some shots in from behind an aircraft.

If used effectively, even the most obsolete fighter craft can cause damage.

Protected from what? Occuppied is the word your looking for.


Thats being corrected :p (hopefully)

The only thing that the american army has expeirience in is running away when there is an explosion.
tell that to the troops is fallujah right now. tell that to all the boys over in iraq and afghanistan right now. and dont even try to tell me that they're losing, thats just the way the media spins it. you'll hear about two US marine deaths, thats 2 out of over 10,000! so thats .02%! how many iraqies are dead now? how many afghanies? im assuming you don't know because the media never says anything about it.

you can't forget the joint strike fighter. the F15 is also an incredible fighter and has never been shot down. the US's airforce is by far the best in the world, along with the navy. the air and sea battle would easilly be the US's. the US could launch cruise missles into EU's important industrial factories or into EU's leadership's buildings. also, the US troops have the most fighting expieriance, so they would have a definate advantage.

Bingo.

False.

There are ways of counteracting that. Soviet Reserve AF doctrine called for using terrain features such as hills for example to mask radar emissions. When the US aircraft overflew, the vastly inferior MiG-21's (for example) could still get some shots in from behind an aircraft.

If used effectively, even the most obsolete fighter craft can cause damage.


Very very true ... and for a long time their downward looking radar was FAR superior giving them an advantage of both being able to fly low and fast (better terrain mapping) and being able to see the american fighters when pulling the same trick

The only thing that the american army has experience in is running away when there is an explosion.

Sure we do. BTW when something is blowing up near you, wouldn't you want to run away so you don't get killed by the shockwave and shrapnel? Or are you Rambo and can take that kind of punishment?

Wow. Germany's still occupied? That's good to know. When are we ousting Schroeder? Wait... That's right... It's because it's NOT being occupied.

Personally, I think that if this was a pseudo-WW2 effort with every country giving it's all.. Nukes aside (Since they'd both lose that way), Europe is far bigger, has far more countries and far more men. Look at WW2 - If America were strong enough to take Europe, it wouldn't have had so much trouble with Germany (And that was with British help after 3 years of war), but nevertheless I think 25+ countries V 1.. USA might be the worlds' superpower, but let's be realistic..

True but even so they are going to have to look into staying specialized … separate planes molded into a group role

Meaning don’t try to make a fighter that does everything and costs 80 percent more … make separate ones and use different combinations of the taskforce to give it a different impact

Western Militaries have followed that model for some time, the EF was just a bad design.

Examples, the F-4, the F-15E, F-16, F-18, the Mirage series, even the F-22.

If i'm honest, well done Iraq. Two less americans to screw up this already crappy planet.

The Empire of Presidency places a $5 wager on the USA and is still wondering what the odds are.

False.

There are ways of counteracting that. Soviet Reserve AF doctrine called for using terrain features such as hills for example to mask radar emissions. When the US aircraft overflew, the vastly inferior MiG-21's (for example) could still get some shots in from behind an aircraft.

If used effectively, even the most obsolete fighter craft can cause damage.

The only way they could is by ramming. Sorry but our radar technology is very advanced, hugging the mountains and such is not really hiding from radars eye (plus we do have satelites). This isn't a Hollywood action movie we are talking about.

No large EU country has large array radar capable of detecting stealth aircraft. First strike of US stealth takes out drops the upgraded versions of the electro meshes they used in 91 in Iraq that takes down the entire European Power grid then all centers of government are taken out both above ground and with bunker busters as US helped built and or been inside most major CC. In about a week stealth and off shore cruise missles have reduced Europe to the stone age.

Personally, I think that if this was a pseudo-WW2 effort with every country giving it's all.. Nukes aside (Since they'd both lose that way), Europe is far bigger, has far more countries and far more men. Look at WW2 - If America were strong enough to take Europe, it wouldn't have had so much trouble with Germany (And that was with British help after 3 years of war), but nevertheless I think 25+ countries V 1.. USA might be the worlds' superpower, but let's be realistic..
Different war, different rules. Europe and the US aren't that much different in size. You also have to remember that we were helping Britain more than the other way around. We can also bomb from miles and miles away, unlike in WW2.

Western Militaries have followed that model for some time, the EF was just a bad design.

Examples, the F-4, the F-15E, F-16, F-18, the Mirage series, even the F-22.


They try to EXPAND their roles

But they didn’t go hog wild like the eu

They were specialized more

F18 tended to stay small and fast … a2a not even really attempting any bombing role (not saying it couldn’t be used but)

The f4 yes … that’s why it was a dog lol

The f15 and 16 tended to be a bit closer to the eu but again they didn’t carry it to the extreme. Along with a great price tag and a robust designed make them still a mainstay in the air force/navy/marines (and to a smaller extent army)



the f22 is essentialy a fancy f15e lol highly maneuverable with increased power but essentialy same design concept

The only way they could is by ramming. Sorry but our radar technology is very advanced, hugging the mountains and such is not really hiding from radars eye (plus we do have satelites). This isn't a Hollywood action movie we are talking about.


no you are right it is not a hollywood action movie ... so relize that we are not invinciable ...

They dont have to ram if they got 50 cal bullets to use ... and in quantity.

Also the downlooking on something like the f18 is MINIMAL ... ground clutter can NEVER be compleatly eliminated.

You might want to be real and relize suprize moves like that can be deadly ... more so if you are over confident

The only way they could is by ramming. Sorry but our radar technology is very advanced, hugging the mountains and such is not really hiding from radars eye (plus we do have satelites). This isn't a Hollywood action movie we are talking about.

No, this isn't a movie situation which is why your idea is flawed.

Radar cannot penetrate landmasses such as mountains, nor can it see behind the aircraft (unless it is an AWACs aircraft). Also, satellites are redundant in this situation. In a hot war, would satellites be able to simultaneously track 5,000 aircraft and their exact altitudes? No, as much as that might be a fanciful notion to military planners, it's not possible at this point in time...As a matter of fact, relaying the data from one target to an aircraft is only in experimental stages.

The F-15 is still the best all around fight ever created. This awesome aircraft would still dominate the battlefield.

They dont have to ram if they got 50 cal bullets to use ... and in quantity.


.50 cal? Try 20mm or 30mm cannons. :)

.50 cal? Try 20mm or 30mm cannons. :)

sorry was thinking old setup for the f15e ... forgot I was arguing for the su's lol

The F-15 is still the best all around fight ever created. This awesome aircraft would still dominate the battlefield.

Like i've said, it's never been matched against a technologically comparable aircraft. The best it has fought are MiG-29A's, vastly inferior to the C model...

Right... You're thinking of France. The US military doesn't run away.
Lebanon, 1983.

sorry was thinking old setup for the f15e ... forgot I was arguing for the su's lol

The F-15E used a 20mm vulcan cannon. .50 cals haven't been used since a few Korean war-era prop aircraft in Vietnam. :)

Like i've said, it's never been matched against a technologically comparable aircraft. The best it has fought are MiG-29A's, vastly inferior to the C model...


correct ... lol the c's would fly circles around it ... the 15 is a HOG lol

The F-15E used a 20mm vulcan cannon. .50 cals haven't been used since a few Korean war-era prop aircraft in Vietnam.

Sure they have ... they were 50 cal vulcans for a bit (maybe remembering vietnam) hmmm I will look it up :)

Anyways the point is moot ... dont have to ram when you still have bullets

now time for class

Can't we all just get along and be like Canada? :)

no you are right it is not a hollywood action movie ... so relize that we are not invinciable ...

They dont have to ram if they got 50 cal bullets to use ... and in quantity.

Also the downlooking on something like the f18 is MINIMAL ... ground clutter can NEVER be compleatly eliminated.

You might want to be real and relize suprize moves like that can be deadly ... more so if you are over confident

Who uses .50 cal in jets anymore. Even if they due use 20 and 30mm you have a few seconds of fire. The focus is on missiles these days. Why waste weight on cannon ammunition when you have more deadly missiles?

The doppler radar systems used gets rid of most of that ground clutter. It is hard to hide when the latest technology is used. Besides it is just as dangerous for the person hugging the earth while flying at speed.

EU or not The modern UK would never go to war against the US if the EU were in a position to declare war against the US the UK would leave the EU.

I can't believe the EU is winning. We wouldn't have a chance against America.

correct ... lol the c's would fly circles around it ... the 15 is a HOG lol

How is the f-15 a hog? It is quite possibly the most powerful fighter ever built when you consider it's thrust to weight ratio. To my knowledge it is still the only fighter that can fly verticle after takeoff up to it's cruising altitude. Maybe we could arm it with those missiles that they can be armed with that can shoot down the enemies satelites.

Who uses .50 cal in jets anymore. Even if they due use 20 and 30mm you have a few seconds of fire. The focus is on missiles these days. Why waste weight on cannon ammunition when you have more deadly missiles?

The point being, it only takes a few seconds and they're gone. An F-16 pilot having a MiG-21 bounce him, then immediately sits on his tail going berzerk with AA-8's and cannon fire would still be a very scared F-16 pilot, and probably dead.

Plus, European inventories are much more advanced than that particular aircraft.

The doppler radar systems used gets rid of most of that ground clutter. It is hard to hide when the latest technology is used. Besides it is just as dangerous for the person hugging the earth while flying at speed.

It can remove ground clutter, but the radar waves cannot penetrate that mountain and detect the aircraft behind. And yes, it could be dangerous for the other side...though typically, the patrols are/were low speed loop patterns.

Does the EU have any long range strategic bombers. How would they attack the US? I don't think they could with Naval forces as the US would have control of the seas.

Does the EU have any long range strategic bombers. How would they attack the US? I don't think they could with Naval forces as the US would have control of the seas.
They could use the new German stealth subs and rig them with nukes or whatever.

How is the f-15 a hog? It is quite possibly the most powerful fighter ever built when you consider it's thrust to weight ratio. To my knowledge it is still the only fighter that can fly verticle after takeoff up to it's cruising altitude. Maybe we could arm it with those missiles that they can be armed with that can shoot down the enemies satelites.

It's fast, has massively powerful engines, but cannot pull as many G's as the MiG-29 for example. It simply isn't maneuverable to cut it nowadays. Hence the F-22.

The point being, it only takes a few seconds and they're gone. An F-16 pilot having a MiG-21 bounce him, then immediately sits on his tail going berzerk with AA-8's and cannon fire would still be a very scared F-16 pilot, and probably dead.

Plus, European inventories are much more advanced than that particular aircraft.



It can remove ground clutter, but the radar waves cannot penetrate that mountain and detect the aircraft behind. And yes, it could be dangerous for the other side...though typically, the patrols are/were low speed loop patterns.


The F-16 is an old boy, but it would surely out fly a mig 21. It is extremely manouverable.

I believe your focus on technology is flawed. Yes, the US might be able to take out installations all over europe. But taking and holding? What would be the purpose of this war?

I can imagine no scenarios in which the EU would attack the US, and for the US to attack the EU the US would have to want something europe has. Oil? Wheat? (Isnt the US exporting wheat?) Drinkable wine?

Anyway, superior technology (and Im not saying the US has it, i honestly dont know) would not help much in taking and holding installations. For that you need infantry, and there, i believe the US is quite outgunned, both when it comes to numbers and skill.

Also, i do not think it is very realistic to hold the rest of the world out of this. They would very, very probably get involved.

They could use the new German stealth subs and rig them with nukes or whatever.

Hey I thought this was non nuclear? Or do you want to cheat?

Stealth subs DO NOT make you invisible underwater. Our hunter attack subs would be able to detect your subs anyway. Sure mines and aerial probes wouldn't see you but the subs can still hear you.

I'm going with the EU, basically no matter what weapons you have, a war is only as good as those in charge of fighting it. As in planning, we've seen how well (not) the US has done (Iraq) .. So to me the smarter of the two would probably win, thus I vote the EU.

Lots and lots of talk about striking against the EU using cruise missiles and the like.

Did you forget about anti-missile missiles? And the EUs own cruise missiles? Don't think the US homeland would be safe from the EU. Who needs bombers when you have Polaris missiles and Storm/Sky Shadows? Not forgetting alot of EU countries use US warplanes anyway...

Such a war would be a tie since the losses on both sides would be massive.

As for the UK, we'd probably abstain from such a war and watch from the sidelines whilst munching popcorn. Then come in and take your countries off you when you were all mostly dead. ;)

Hey I thought this was non nuclear? Or do you want to cheat?
Allright then. Bio-weapons. Happy now?

The F-16 is an old boy, but it would surely out fly a mig 21. It is extremely manouverable.

Sure, at moderate speeds. If the F-16 is flying above or below mach 0.8, it's performance starts to decline. Also, if it is laden, it can't pull too many G's without jetissoning it's ordinance (even at mach 0.8)- in which case the MiG has won a small victory, preventing a target being attacked.

Finally, if bounced, it would only take a split second for the MiG to get a missile off and even less time allowed for the Falcon pilot to react.

Sure, at moderate speeds. If the F-16 is flying above or below mach 0.8, it's performance starts to decline. Also, if it is laden, it can't pull too many G's without jetissoning it's ordinance (even at mach 0.8)- in which case the MiG has won a small victory, preventing a target being attacked.

Finally, if bounced, it would only take a split second for the MiG to get a missile off and even less time allowed for the Falcon pilot to react.

The electronics in the f-16 would target the mig 21 before it's outdated system would be able to lock on.

Allright then. Bio-weapons. Happy now?

Sorry but we have more bio-weapons then you, plus we wouldn't constantly be bombed so our production would most likely got on, whilst yours would probably not be able to keep up.

The electronics in the f-16 would target the mig 21 before it's outdated system would be able to lock on.

No, because the MiG is behind the F-16. It has been "bounced". The F-16's radar cannot get a lock, the MiG being behind the aircraft and it must maneuver to counteract...Additional problems arise if the sun is behind the attacking MiGs, making visual ID impossible.

Lets assume that the MiG fired an AA-8, which doesn't need a radar lock-on, being a heat seeking missile. Then it follows with a barrage from the cannon...

Lets assume also that it was two MiGs that fired upon a flight of 4 Falcons. There is a very good chance that at least one of those aircraft was destroyed and the rest had to drop ordinance. Even if the MiGs are destroyed, they have surpassed their value.

My point is, it is possible to counteract technology with tactics in the right circumstances.

Id say the EU, twice the population of the US. Make no mistake Britain would be duty bound to fight with the EU, as we are in that and there has never been a direct alliance with the US, just a 'special relationship' technically if the US attacked the other Nato members would be duty bound to attack America also...
Europe as a whole has high tech weapons just like the States, I know the French of some damn good fighter aircraft and most European air forces will be flying the new Eurofighter Typhoon soon. Couldnt see US forces even making a landing cause you could just blow them out of the water.

I'm going with the EU, basically no matter what weapons you have, a war is only as good as those in charge of fighting it. As in planning, we've seen how well (not) the US has done (Iraq) .. So to me the smarter of the two would probably win, thus I vote the EU.


Well Steph, how exactly do you have a plan in the middle of a war. Any number of things can occur which would make you have to keep changing plans. You can't have a real plan for a war. You have to hope for the best. Yup the smarter of the two would win, and that would be the US.

You may have all of this education Steph, but your knowledge of military strategy is sad really. Nice try.

Sorry but we have more bio-weapons then you, plus we wouldn't constantly be bombed so our production would most likely got on, whilst yours would probably not be able to keep up.
It realy doesn't matter who has the most. Cause all you need is a relative small amount of the like you can find in most scientific medical research labs. The German subs can deliver the virus before beeing detected and get out before it spreads. No need for a bombing campaign.

One would have to wonder given population diifferences, the EU out numbering the US by a large amount, how would the US even touch Europe land without being blown away first? Nah, the US would get it's ass kicked. I mean where would they even base? I seriously doubt too many countries outside of Europe would let them base on their land. I know Canada would tell the US to get stuffed.

No, because the MiG is behind the F-16. It has been "bounced". The F-16's radar cannot get a lock, the MiG being behind the aircraft and it must maneuver to counteract...Additional problems arise if the sun is behind the attacking MiGs, making visual ID impossible.

Lets assume that the MiG fired an AA-8, which doesn't need a radar lock-on, being a heat seeking missile. Then it follows with a barrage from the cannon...

Lets assume also that it was two MiGs that fired upon a flight of 4 Falcons. There is a very good chance that at least one of those aircraft was destroyed and the rest had to drop ordinance.

My point is, it is possible to counteract technology with tactics in the right circumstances.

Those circumstances do not usually occur in todays world. You are stuck in Korea and Vietnam. These jets would never get close enough where you can use your cannon. You are simply living in the past. Why was the F-4 built without a cannon? Because even back in Vietnam, dogfights were on the way out. Besides with todays radar technologies and satelite technology, you can not sneak up on enemies anymore unless you have stealth.

Well Steph, how exactly do you have a plan in the middle of a war. Any number of things can occur which would make you have to keep changing plans. You can't have a real plan for a war. You have to hope for the best. Yup the smarter of the two would win, and that would be the US.

You may have all of this education Steph, but your knowledge of military strategy is sad really. Nice try.

A valid point concerning on-the-fly strategy, however, basic outlines *at the bare minimum* are necessary. Massive amounts of planning would be needed to ensure, or at least attempt to ensure, that occupied areas remain under effective control with the least possible manpower, for example. From recent experience, the US has cocked up that phase...especially thinking that the Iraqi people would greet them as liberators. Europe wouldn't lie down easily either.

When there's huge land masses to be crossed, Aircraft Carriers, submarines, and navy boats play a large role. Which I believe US has the upperhand.

However I do not know if they have the resources (oil especially), and soldiers to occupy Europe.

It would be a continous bombing run on European cities.

But if not, it would be a draw.


Oh Oh. You forgot, Bush has Jesus behind him. You Europeans with your Pope are no match for Jesus-power.

It realy doesn't matter who has the most. Cause all you need is a relative small amount of the like you can find in most scientific medical research labs. The German subs can deliver the virus before beeing detected and get out before it spreads. No need for a bombing campaign.

Well if the hunter subs wouldn't put them on the bottom first. ;) Would you use cruise missiles to spread your bio-chem weapons or ICBMs? We do have Patriot missiles and such.

A valid point concerning on-the-fly strategy, however, basic outlines *at the bare minimum* are necessary. Massive amounts of planning would be needed to ensure, or at least attempt to ensure, that occupied areas remain under effective control with the least possible manpower, for example. From recent experience, the US has cocked up that phase...especially thinking that the Iraqi people would greet them as liberators. Europe wouldn't lie down easily either.

We wouldn't be occupiers, just continually bomb them. You really think the Europeans of today have the guts to withstand bombings worse then WWII? They would sue for peace as the peaceniks over there would be protesting in the streets.

Well if the hunter subs wouldn't put them on the bottom first. ;)
They would have to find them first. Stealth sub and all. Able to stay below the surface for 3 weeks in a row.
Would you use cruise missiles to spread your bio-chem weapons or ICBMs? We do have Patriot missiles and such.
Putting small commando units ashore to put it in your water supply should do the trick.

We wouldn't be occupiers, just continually bomb them. You really think the Europeans of today have the guts to withstand bombings worse then WWII? They would sue for peace as the peaceniks over there would be protesting in the streets.

The peaceniks would demonctrate against the illegal US invasion. And then go join the army.

I know I would, and I have avoided military service until know arguing im a pacifist.

Those circumstances do not usually occur in todays world. You are stuck in Korea and Vietnam. These jets would never get close enough where you can use your cannon. You are simply living in the past. Why was the F-4 built without a cannon? Because even back in Vietnam, dogfights were on the way out. Besides with todays radar technologies and satelite technology, you can not sneak up on enemies anymore unless you have stealth.

No, i've already explained the doctrine, (still in use with most former eastern-bloc countries) and how it is applied....also that radar cannot penetrate a mountain. The circumstances make for an effective weapon. If the US goes to war within a few years in Iran or North Korea, they will certainly see this in action considering the rugged terrain of both of those nations. You'll see. Technology is not infallible.

(And every fighter since the F-4 has a cannon, because it was sorely missed.)

See, I know thise is an exercise, but seriously, if the US were to just start flying over Europe and carpet bombing them with the purpose of just doing away with Europe, it would be WWIII and the US would be Germany this time around. Really, it's insane to say that the rest of the world would just sit by.. they wouldn't. Europe has many more friends then the US does..I'm telling you, the US would get blown back into the dark ages.

Yes, we always hear about how the USA is the most powerful country.. but the case here is talking about one country going against many countries. It's just not realistic to even think the US would or could win.

Europe has many more friends then the US does..I'm telling you, the US would get blown back into the dark ages.

You make it almost sound worth it.

They would have to find them first. Stealth sub and all. Able to stay below the surface for 3 weeks in a row.

Putting small commando units ashore to put it in your water supply should do the trick.


Stealth subs make noise, thus they are detectable by our subs which rule.

Small commado units? OK sure you hero! (http://www.simianfever.com/rambo.jpg) Not like we couldn't send in our SEALS and Green Berets. Only question is how to get them out, or would you send them all on suicide missions.

BTW we do have more then one water supply you know.

We wouldn't be occupiers, just continually bomb them. You really think the Europeans of today have the guts to withstand bombings worse then WWII? They would sue for peace as the peaceniks over there would be protesting in the streets.

You could be surprised. Plus, where are those aircraft going to come from? The continental US? Limits the strike power somewhat.

No, i've already explained the doctrine, (still in use with most former eastern-bloc countries) and how it is applied....also that radar cannot penetrate a mountain. The circumstances make for an effective weapon. If the US goes to war within a few years in Iran or North Korea, they will certainly see this in action considering the rugged terrain of both of those nations. You'll see. Technology is not infallible.

(And every fighter since the F-4 has a cannon, because it was sorely missed.)

A fighter cannot penetrate a mountain either. There is a myth that if you stay close to the ground, you won't be detected. It is a myth.

You could be surprised. Plus, where are those aircraft going to come from? The continental US? Limits the strike power somewhat.
Presumably from bases on the UK;)

Stealth subs make noise.
Not this one. Doesn't even generate heat.

Not like we couldn't send in our SEALS and Green Berets.
You couldn't. They'd be spotted as soon as they open their mouth. Americans aren't known for their ability to master foreign languages.

BTW we do have more then one water supply you know.
Fine. At airports for flights inside the US.

Mod Edit : Resize the pic, it's throwing the frames out of whack. - Stephanie.

See, I know thise is an exercise, but seriously, if the US were to just start flying over Europe and carpet bombing them with the purpose of just doing away with Europe, it would be WWIII and the US would be Germany this time around. Really, it's insane to say that the rest of the world would just sit by.. they wouldn't. Europe has many more friends then the US does..I'm telling you, the US would get blown back into the dark ages.

Yes, we always hear about how the USA is the most powerful country.. but the case here is talking about one country going against many countries. It's just not realistic to even think the US would or could win.

Of course this is unrealistic, but we were just saying if both sides were only fighting each other, and everyone else was not involved. But then you have to bring logic into it and also your anti-US sentiment comes into play.

You Canadians are just like us, but your volume is turned way down.

You could be surprised. Plus, where are those aircraft going to come from? The continental US? Limits the strike power somewhat.

Carriers.

Small commado units? OK sure you hero! Not like we couldn't send in our SEALS and Green Berets. Only question is how to get them out, or would you send them all on suicide missions.

First, SEALS are pussies. No, really, they are.
Second, the point, i think, would be for them not to be seen. You cant send a response to an action you dont know have taken place. If they would know theyre job, which german special forces would, theyd be on theyre way out before anyone would be the wiser. Still, thats not the point, really, the point is, no country is unattackable. Especially not the US.

A fighter cannot penetrate a mountain either. There is a myth that if you stay close to the ground, you won't be detected. It is a myth.

You miss the point once again. It calls for engaging the aircraft flying overhead, above the mountain and therefore coming from below onto the targets rear.

The mountain is a radar black spot- it's not just because the aircraft are close to the ground, it's because the waves cannot "see" behind the obstacle.

Put it this way, Europe couldn't invade America and America couldn't invade Europe... why? Both about equal in military power, with the Americans having the advantage on sea and the Europeans the advantage on land (as well as being more numerous). With them being about equal in air...

If it came down to consciption the Europeans would massacre the Americans for having 100-200 million more people...

But one must remeber both continents fight in two polar ways, the Europeans prefer a more indirect approach (with more focus on special forces, hearts & minds and smaller very mobile units) and the Americans prefer a more direct approach (lots of tech & 'uber' killer things and more numerous armour (although the Europeans have generally equal/better tanks) and mass formations. It would be interesting to see who wins but I suspect both sides would simply stick to launching non-WMD missles at each other and having small scale naval engagements, because of the fact that any large movement would be seen by the other and blown to bits.

Incidentally, I want to know how America would bomb Europe's cities? Bar Cruise missles there is practically nothing that would get through European defense nets on a regular enough basis to warrant attacks, but then again Europe would launch missles straight back at you in a similar fashion.

For all America's power, they have always forgotten Europe is still horrendously powerful when it chooses to be. God forbid if America gets Europe to unite against it... World War V, I think (yes technically it would be).

During my economyclasses, my teacher explained "efficiency" with the next example: The US spends about 1,5 times as much as the EU on the military, though the US' army is about 10 times as powerfull as that of the EU. No really, it's true. The army of the US is just bigger and better and the US is less pacifistic, which explaines why the big demonstrations against the war in Iraq were almost all in Europe. The US would win big time, though afterwards, it'ld suffer the economic consequenses. They need us, they need us to be rich and buy American stuff.

Carriers.

We're talking mass carpet bombing here. You can't load a B-52 or B-1 onto a carrier, for example.

Not this one. Doesn't even generate heat.


You couldn't. They'd be spotted as soon as they open their mouth. Americans aren't known for their ability to master foreign languages.


Fine. At airports for flights inside the US.

Mod Edit : Resize the pic, it's throwing the frames out of whack. - Stephanie.



Hey genius, what kind of sub is that. Is it nuclear powered? BTW our subs can stay underwater a bit longer then 3 weeks.

Why would our insertion teams have to be fluent in your languages? We'd airdrop them in, then extradite them out of there.

When Japan attacked the US, it had everything better than the Americans. Better leadership, better planes, even better torpedoes. They lacked one thing, in which the Americans were far, far superior: Industrial capability.

The Russians have a saying that goes like "quantity as its own quality". If you look at WW2, you can see this. The german Tiger Tanks were the best tanks of the world at that time, but the Russian T34 was better. Not because the T34 was faster, better armed, or something, on the contrary. It simply happened that for each Tiger tank, you had 20 T34. So much for the superior german tech.

I dont want to flame anyone, but amateurs talk about tactics, dilletants talk about strategy. Experts of war talk about logistics.

A war between the US and Europe would basically be a tie. Both have huge economies, but Europe wins on this one, because at maximum production, it is simply bigger than the American. Still, the US are far better equipped for war. But the thing is, no matter what, the Atlantic would make an invasion (and victory) of each side impossible. Simply, no one could send thousands of troops across the atlantic without suffering unbelievably high casualties (The Atlantic isnt like the Canal).

Even if the Americans can send Bombers across the Atlantic, even they 22 B2, those would most likely be shot down, with incredible loss, even higher than the infortunate B17 formations of WW2 above germany in 1943. Between fighters would occur, mostly US naval fighters against European Eurofighters. This would pit Naval F22 against Eurofighters: Read the part of the Tiger Tank vs the T34? The F22 is better than the Eurofighter, but it costs a little bit more than the double. Which means that Each F22 would fight Two to three Eurofighters. And so on.

This arguement is not only pointless, its generally flawed!!

Not only would it be impossible for the Euro Sceptics to accept a war with America! But it would also be hard for the Americans not to shoot themselves before we get there!

During my economyclasses, my teacher explained "efficiency" with the next example: The US spends about 1,5 times as much as the EU on the military, though the US' army is about 10 times as powerfull as that of the EU. No really, it's true. The army of the US is just bigger and better and the US is less pacifistic, which explaines why the big demonstrations against the war in Iraq were almost all in Europe. The US would win big time, though afterwards, it'ld suffer the economic consequenses. They need us, they need us to be rich and buy American stuff.

10 times as powerfull? how, exactly, do you measure that?

You miss the point once again. It calls for engaging the aircraft flying overhead, above the mountain and therefore coming from below onto the targets rear.

The mountain is a radar black spot- it's not just because the aircraft are close to the ground, it's because the waves cannot "see" behind the obstacle.

Sorry but doppler radar curves over obstacles. Satelites can also see since they are directly overhead. Do you not agree that satelites could make a difference in this battle?

A war between the US and Europe would basically be a tie. Both have huge economies, but Europe wins on this one, because at maximum production, it is simply bigger than the American. Still, the US are far better equipped for war. But the thing is, no matter what, the Atlantic would make an invasion (and victory) of each side impossible. Simply, no one could send thousands of troops across the atlantic without suffering unbelievably high casualties (The Atlantic isnt like the Canal).


That was exactly my original point.

You Canadians are just like us, but your volume is turned way down.

Canadians are nothing like you. Trust me. The USA is a coservative country, Canada is a liberal country. In over 65 years the conservative party of Canada has only been in power for 16 years of it and those 16 years were broken up over time. Canadians loath the very idea of being compared to the US.

Any way, this thread is not about that. Sorry for the highjack, I had to respond to this.

Hey genius, what kind of sub is that. Is it nuclear powered?
Hydrogen. Not dependent on the outside air.
BTW our subs can stay underwater a bit longer then 3 weeks.
What kind of subs?

Why would our insertion teams have to be fluent in your languages? We'd airdrop them in, then extradite them out of there.
Well, I assume they are supposed to deliver something. In which case there won't be much left to extradite. Or is your plan to drop with para's on our heads untill we give up?

During my economyclasses, my teacher explained "efficiency" with the next example: The US spends about 1,5 times as much as the EU on the military, though the US' army is about 10 times as powerfull as that of the EU. No really, it's true. The army of the US is just bigger and better and the US is less pacifistic, which explaines why the big demonstrations against the war in Iraq were almost all in Europe. The US would win big time, though afterwards, it'ld suffer the economic consequenses. They need us, they need us to be rich and buy American stuff.

Yes, but i guess everyone is assuming a united Europe, which isnt the case now. There are 25 European armies, each with their own command structure, defence network, etc. This takes away lots of efficiency by sheer duplication of structures.

They need us, they need us to be rich and buy American stuff.
The EU needs you to be rich so they can buy American stuff?

Sorry but doppler radar curves over obstacles. Satelites can also see since they are directly overhead. Do you not agree that satelites could make a difference in this battle?

The aircraft would have to be flying at a certain angle over the target for the doppler effect, requiring a higher altitude, and therefore dramatically increasing radar visibility and fuel consumption, as well as decreasing maneuverability. A recipe for disaster, i'm sure you agree.

I stated earlier that satellites are not quite there yet. They present an interesting option, however, as I said, it is impossible to track 5000 targets at once as well as their exact speed and altitudes *then* relay them to individual aircraft/missiles for processing. In some years, maybe, but not now.

10 times as powerfull? how, exactly, do you measure that?
In Dutch (yep, that's me) you say "slagkracht", though I don't have a clue on how to translate that. It has to do with do ability to do damage in a certain amount of time, over a certain range. There's a complete scientific explanation, though I can't seem to find it, and if I could, it's still in Dutch, but it's true.

The EU needs you to be rich so they can buy American stuff?

Do Americans need to be reminded of their soaring trade deficit? ;)

The Eu doesn't have any power projection, aside from one mediocre carrier in the French navy, so an invasion of the USA is out of the question. Barring the nuke equation, the US would win a conventional war, considering how close out ties are with many of the EU member-states. If the EU was to declare war on the USA, there would be many nations either declaring complete neutrality (Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia) or siding with the USA (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, and most likely the UK). That leaves the coalition of the French and Germans, with possibly some support from Denmark, Austria, Sweden, and MAYBE the central European ex-Red states (but they'd probably go neutral as well). The Germans haven't won a war since 1871, and the French haven't won a war since 1066. I highly doubt the German army would be able to defeat the US forces currently occupying their country, let alone resist a major modern mechanized invasion through Poland.

"slagkracht"
Battlestrength.

The Eu doesn't have any power projection, aside from one mediocre carrier in the French navy, so an invasion of the USA is out of the question. Barring the nuke equation, the US would win a conventional war, considering how close out ties are with many of the EU member-states. If the EU was to declare war on the USA, there would be many nations either declaring complete neutrality (Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia) or siding with the USA (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, and most likely the UK). That leaves the coalition of the French and Germans, with possibly some support from Denmark, Austria, Sweden, and MAYBE the central European ex-Red states (but they'd probably go neutral as well). The Germans haven't won a war since 1871, and the French haven't won a war since 1066. I highly doubt the German army would be able to defeat the US forces currently occupying their country, let alone resist a major modern mechanized invasion through Poland.
Turkey, Macedonia and Romania aren't EU nations.

Not really. WW2 lifted the USA out of the depression and after the war, what is arguably the greatest economic boom the world has ever known took place.

WWII pulled ALL the economies of the world out of the Great Depression. Of course, the world suffered a pretty large recession in 1947-1949, until the West figured out that mass consumerism would keep their economies out of most large depression cycles.

This is an amazingly artificial and contrived situation. The military power of the EU is almost marginal compared to the states' though, if you look at budget, technology, cohesiveness (which the EU has almost none of, what i mean is ability to coordinate and move as one body), homegrown defense industries (which many member states have almost none of), morale/fighting spirit (I somehow doubt countries like Spain and Portugal and Ireland would stand idly by as their soil became the front line, with nothing to gain and everything to lose) and sheer combat experience.

Arguing for Europe simply because you want them to 'win' is an exercise of childish self-delusion and/or blatant flag-waving. Understanding the world as it is instead of how you'd like it, no matter how badly, is a good idea in making policy.

The Eu doesn't have any power projection, aside from one mediocre carrier in the French navy, so an invasion of the USA is out of the question. Barring the nuke equation, the US would win a conventional war, considering how close out ties are with many of the EU member-states. If the EU was to declare war on the USA, there would be many nations either declaring complete neutrality (Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia) or siding with the USA (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, and most likely the UK). That leaves the coalition of the French and Germans, with possibly some support from Denmark, Austria, Sweden, and MAYBE the central European ex-Red states (but they'd probably go neutral as well). The Germans haven't won a war since 1871, and the French haven't won a war since 1066. I highly doubt the German army would be able to defeat the US forces currently occupying their country, let alone resist a major modern mechanized invasion through Poland.

How do you justify the support of each nation? I mean, how do you know?

My only thought is "Not this crap again!". :headbang:

indeed...

Why would the EU and the US go to war? How could Bush anger the EU? What would he do...have a higher GDP than europe?

"OH SHIT GUYS...GATHER YOUR NEIGHBORS AND BOMB THE MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH!"

Does anyone see the stupidity in my post? Indeed...I can't even muster an intelligent respose to "Who would win...the EU vs. USA?" Why don't you just go back to important things...like Star Wars vs. Star Trek or why Bush is satan.

*rolls eyes*

The Eu doesn't have any power projection, aside from one mediocre carrier in the French navy

Easy, build more. In a protracted war this is certainly possible...

Plus, the UK and France can rely on former/present colonies with which they have defensive ties. Eg, Jamaica, Belize, French Guiana, Tahiti...

and the French haven't won a war since 1066

World War One. They proportionally inflicted and received the most casualties. And won.

The Eu doesn't have any power projection, aside from one mediocre carrier in the French navy, so an invasion of the USA is out of the question. Barring the nuke equation, the US would win a conventional war, considering how close out ties are with many of the EU member-states. If the EU was to declare war on the USA, there would be many nations either declaring complete neutrality (Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Spain, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Macedonia, Romania, Slovenia) or siding with the USA (Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece, and most likely the UK). That leaves the coalition of the French and Germans, with possibly some support from Denmark, Austria, Sweden, and MAYBE the central European ex-Red states (but they'd probably go neutral as well). The Germans haven't won a war since 1871, and the French haven't won a war since 1066. I highly doubt the German army would be able to defeat the US forces currently occupying their country, let alone resist a major modern mechanized invasion through Poland.

Good points.

Besides even if Italy would join on the EU side, well they had enough trouble with Ethiopia, as soon as you landed on the boot, they'd surrender.

WWII pulled ALL the economies of the world out of the Great Depression. Of course, the world suffered a pretty large recession in 1947-1949, until the West figured out that mass consumerism would keep their economies out of most large depression cycles.

lol, no. I hate to say it, but Europe and Japan's economic growth were due to the USA's aid.

Um you may what to re-evaluate ... while we arguably do have the best bombers the su29's (that most of western europe would still have) are one MEAN fighter. Can stand toe to toe with anything we have baring the f22 raptor

Machines matter less than training, and American pilots train for hundreds of hours more than almost any other combat pilots on the planet (with the exception of the Brits and Israelis). A wing of F-15s with AMRAMs and F-22 support would make quick work out of all the SU29s yet built (good planes, but bad avionics packages and worse missiles)

This is an amazingly artificial and contrived situation. The military power of the EU is almost marginal compared to the states' though, if you look at budget, technology, cohesiveness (which the EU has almost none of, what i mean is ability to coordinate and move as one body), homegrown defense industries (which many member states have almost none of), morale/fighting spirit (I somehow doubt countries like Spain and Portugal and Ireland would stand idly by as their soil became the front line, with nothing to gain and everything to lose) and sheer combat experience.

Arguing for Europe simply because you want them to 'win' is an exercise of childish self-delusion and/or blatant flag-waving. Understanding the world as it is instead of how you'd like it, no matter how badly, is a good idea in making policy.

There is nothing better to foster quick and efficient union that a common enemy.

I am Portuguese, invade my country, and we will maim every soldier you have (Main, not kill. Wonded cost money to treat, dead cost nothing to treat.)

The Eu doesn't have any power projection, aside from one mediocre carrier in the French navy.
Italy has one as well, a second under construction. Spain has one as well. And France has 2.

Plus, the UK and France can rely on former/present colonies with which they have defensive ties. Eg, Jamaica, Belize, French Guiana, Tahiti...


Yes...all fear Jamaica and French Guiana...

Watch us fight back with our superpowers such as...Pennsylvania

AMRAMs and F-22 support would make quick work out of all the SU29s yet built (good planes, but bad avionics packages and worse missiles)
The AIM-9X is based on purchased Russian technology, I believe.

Easy, build more. In a protracted war this is certainly possible...

Plus, the UK and France can rely on former/present colonies with which they have defensive ties. Eg, Jamaica, Belize, French Guiana, Tahiti...



World War One. They proportionally inflicted and received the most casualties. And won.

You don't think shipyards would be a major target for bombing?

In Dutch (yep, that's me) you say "slagkracht", though I don't have a clue on how to translate that. It has to do with do ability to do damage in a certain amount of time, over a certain range. There's a complete scientific explanation, though I can't seem to find it, and if I could, it's still in Dutch, but it's true.

I understand slagkracgt, i believe we have a similar word in my language, but i believe there is to many unknown factors in this equation to make quite so bombastic arguments. As someone stated earlier, most european militarys focus on smaller, better trained units. I am sceptic as to wether your equations takes into account such differences, and wether this way of measuring makes sence. The american military machine may have more "slagkracht" against weaker countries, but if turned upon targets better able to defend itself, would it be the same? Or would theyre ability to do damage be severly reduced from the stronger, and different opposition?

Im only trying to say such things are extremely difficult to measure, and the unknown variables are innnoumerous...

(also, europeen countries are usually more focused on defense than attack, makin the measurment very biased towards the US forces.)

Yes...all fear Jamaica and French Guiana...

Watch us fight back with our superpowers such as...Pennsylvania

Power projection. They act as naval and air bases as well as staging points.

Machines matter less than training, and American pilots train for hundreds of hours more than almost any other combat pilots on the planet (with the exception of the Brits and Israelis). A wing of F-15s with AMRAMs and F-22 support would make quick work out of all the SU29s yet built (good planes, but bad avionics packages and worse missiles)
Then we simply stop selling you the parts you need for your fighters. Lot's of those are build over here.

lol, no. I hate to say it, but Europe and Japan's economic growth were due to the USA's aid.

Yes. WWII pulled America out of the Great Depression. While Europe was in ruins (both the victors and the losers) and Japan's culture was crushed (they lost!) America provided aid and gave money which has still not been paid back, nor is it expected to be. America rebuilt Europe and gave Japan a mass market for their technology.

World War One. They proportionally inflicted and received the most casualties. And won.
No, that's not true. Nobody won that one, they just signed a peacetreaty saying it was all Germany's fault it all started and Germany lost land and had to pay money, but nobody won. But I'm thinking they were in Gulfwar I, which they did win and I think Napoleon III (not the one who got kicked in Waterloo, but one a couple of decades later) won some wars...

how are the Euros building Sukhois without Russian help?

For a start the UK has a large Navy. If attacked the EU would stand as one, nobody would side with States as they are being the 'evil invaders' make no mistake they would be defeated. The armies in Europe may be individually smaller but are much better trained. Through sheer population size alone the EU could beat America if it tried to invade. God help you if you tried to go through Switzerland, every home has a machine gun, all their bridges are mined and they are generally nuts. Dont let their neutral history fool you!

You don't think shipyards would be a major target for bombing?

You don't think they'd be a major defensive priority? ;)

Power projection. They act as naval and air bases as well as staging points.

I forgot that we were now "at war" and not just talking about it.

In that case, what's to stop America from invading the said islands from our own such as Puerto Rico or simply Florida? America's military strength far outweighs Europe's combined strength.

God help you if you tried to go through Switzerland
They would freeze all US assets in their bank vaults.

I understand slagkracgt, i believe we have a similar word in my language, but i believe there is to many unknown factors in this equation to make quite so bombastic arguments. As someone stated earlier, most european militarys focus on smaller, better trained units. I am sceptic as to wether your equations takes into account such differences, and wether this way of measuring makes sence. The american military machine may have more "slagkracht" against weaker countries, but if turned upon targets better able to defend itself, would it be the same? Or would theyre ability to do damage be severly reduced from the stronger, and different opposition?

Im only trying to say such things are extremely difficult to measure, and the unknown variables are innnoumerous...

(also, europeen countries are usually more focused on defense than attack, makin the measurment very biased towards the US forces.)
true...

Anyway it's a silly discusion, because the next war between the EU and US is going to be fought on economic terms, and we're going to win that (we won the one on steel, Mwhuhahahaha!)

No, that's not true. Nobody won that one, they just signed a peacetreaty saying it was all Germany's fault it all started and Germany lost land and had to pay money, but nobody won. But I'm thinking they were in Gulfwar I, which they did win and I think Napoleon III (not the one who got kicked in Waterloo, but one a couple of decades later) won some wars...

France defeated the invasion and prevented it from reaching Paris (Before the UK and US had major forces involved and things got bogged down in trench warfare) That counts as a win in my eyes.

Canadians are nothing like you. Trust me. The USA is a coservative country, Canada is a liberal country. In over 65 years the conservative party of Canada has only been in power for 16 years of it and those 16 years were broken up over time. Canadians loath the very idea of being compared to the US.

Any way, this thread is not about that. Sorry for the highjack, I had to respond to this.

Sorry but Canadians are almost Americans. Not every province in Canada is liberal. Alberta for one. Besides since Ontario and Quebec are the most populated areas, of course they'd vote liberal. Remember your opinions do not represent every Canadians opinions. It goes beyond politics, you know cultural and what-not.

how are the Euros building Sukhois without Russian help?

o.o Depends of what you consider Europe to be:

a) European Union (all togheter or split)
b) European Nations (all toghter or split)

Since this is a "war" between the EU and the US, there would not be SU in Europe :D

For a start the UK has a large Navy. If attacked the EU would stand as one, nobody would side with States as they are being the 'evil invaders' make no mistake they would be defeated. The armies in Europe may be individually smaller but are much better trained. Through sheer population size alone the EU could beat America if it tried to invade. God help you if you tried to go through Switzerland, every home has a machine gun, all their bridges are mined and they are generally nuts. Dont let their neutral history fool you!

For a start, why the hell would America invade Europe? Even if America was the warmongers in this war that would never, ever, happen...it would be a horrible way to get public support.

Second, European armies better trained? Yeah...and I can stand here and "support my team" too. Prove it.

...and lastly, why the hell would we invade Europe through it's middle? One would think a country on its border would be first to get hit. Hehe...france...

I forgot that we were now "at war" and not just talking about it.

In that case, what's to stop America from invading the said islands from our own such as Puerto Rico or simply Florida? America's military strength far outweighs Europe's combined strength.

Ah, but there you go, the US is already getting bogged down in places like that...

How would it conquer and control the mainland if it has so many little conflicts going?

If anyone thinks that Europe will go to war against the US, or vice versa, is nuts, IMHO :D

But i find it fun to discuss this :D

If anyone thinks that Europe will go to war against the US, or vice versa, is nuts, IMHO :D

But i find it fun to discuss this :D

lol, yeah :)


...need sleep, continue this in the morning.

Sorry but Canadians are almost Americans. Not every province in Canada is liberal. Alberta for one. Besides since Ontario and Quebec are the most populated areas, of course they'd vote liberal. Remember your opinions do not represent every Canadians opinions. It goes beyond politics, you know cultural and what-not.
Congratulations. By saying Canadians are Americans you just rallied all Canadians behind the Mapel leave standing as one against the US. (We're still at war aren't we?)

France defeated the invasion and prevented it from reaching Paris (Before the UK and US had major forces involved and things got bogged down in trench warfare) That counts as a win in my eyes.

I have to agree with Poly...most historians will tell you that no one really won WWI, it was just our "allied" culture, if you can call it that, that proclaimed it a win for the homefront. The fact that within 30 years, there was another World War, proves it. Europe got beat around during WWI. Germany got blamed, got pissed off, therefore the people didn't care that Hitler was a dictator, and then starting kicking the rest of Europe's ass until England made a stand.

Congratulations. By saying Canadians are Americans you just rallied all Canadians behind the Mapel leave standing as one against the US. (We're still at war aren't we?)

Yes, all three boats of your navy

No, because the MiG is behind the F-16. It has been "bounced". The F-16's radar cannot get a lock, the MiG being behind the aircraft and it must maneuver to counteract...Additional problems arise if the sun is behind the attacking MiGs, making visual ID impossible.

Lets assume that the MiG fired an AA-8, which doesn't need a radar lock-on, being a heat seeking missile. Then it follows with a barrage from the cannon...

Lets assume also that it was two MiGs that fired upon a flight of 4 Falcons. There is a very good chance that at least one of those aircraft was destroyed and the rest had to drop ordinance. Even if the MiGs are destroyed, they have surpassed their value.

My point is, it is possible to counteract technology with tactics in the right circumstances.

Possible, but not likely given American training and overt skill. This tactic, while it sounds good on paper, hasn't worked successfully since the end of WWII (maybe Korea). An American AWACs would be able to see the 21's before they'd ber able to pull off the maneuver, and top CAP F-15s would shoot 'em down with AMRAMs, allowing the 16's to complete their deep strike missions. Even before that, the countermeasures on the 16's would have gone a long way towards completely scrambling the tiny brains of the IR AA-8s (which are bad copies of the AIM-9)

They would freeze all US assets in their bank vaults.

lol :D

Ah, but there you go, the US is already getting bogged down in places like that...

How would it conquer and control the mainland if it has so many little conflicts going?

I don't see us (I'm American) getting "bogged down" in the carribean or whatnot though. Island hopping worked wonders 60 some years ago. I'm sure a tactic far beyond that could be discovered today, making the island war relatively effortless in the big picture.

For a start, why the hell would America invade Europe? Even if America was the warmongers in this war that would never, ever, happen...it would be a horrible way to get public support.

Second, European armies better trained? Yeah...and I can stand here and "support my team" too. Prove it.

...and lastly, why the hell would we invade Europe through it's middle? One would think a country on its border would be first to get hit. Hehe...france...

Its widely accepted that certainly the British forces are better trained than the US, especially the SAS recognised as the best fighting force on the planet.

The last part was more of a joke!

For a start the UK has a large Navy. If attacked the EU would stand as one, nobody would side with States as they are being the 'evil invaders' make no mistake they would be defeated. The armies in Europe may be individually smaller but are much better trained. Through sheer population size alone the EU could beat America if it tried to invade. God help you if you tried to go through Switzerland, every home has a machine gun, all their bridges are mined and they are generally nuts. Dont let their neutral history fool you!

HAHAHA!!! The UK has a strong Navy?!?! What utter rubbish. I'm British, and I can safely say our Navy ain't amazing. The troops are well trained (although barely any better than the US troops), but we've got no modern carriers to combat the likes of the Nimitz. And we don't have the airpower to knock out F-15s and the like. Our tanks(Our meaning EU) (Challenger II and German Leopard) might be good, but they aren't much better than the US M1A2, and we don't have enough.

Don't even get me started on the quality of personnel weaponry. SA80 *sniggers*.

The US would massacre the EU. Yes, there would be many US deaths (mainly from Guerrilla/Submarine warfare probably though) but America would still win.

One would have to wonder given population diifferences, the EU out numbering the US by a large amount, how would the US even touch Europe land without being blown away first? Nah, the US would get it's ass kicked. I mean where would they even base? I seriously doubt too many countries outside of Europe would let them base on their land. I know Canada would tell the US to get stuffed.

And what are the Euros going to do with this vast population? Arm them? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Untrained Europeans with assault rifles....that's funny. To keep it fair, can we send our inner-city gangbangers as a first wave? They can't shoot straight either. (I'd say send hillbillies and rednecks, but where do you think the US gets all it's snipers and sergeants from?)

Its widely accepted that certainly the British forces are better trained than the US, especially the SAS recognised as the best fighting force on the planet.

The last part was more of a joke!

As was my last part. I hoped that you weren't that stupid.

Anyhow...if the SAS is better than the Army Ranger or even the Navy SEALs or the mysterious "delta force" it doesn't matter all that much. The SAS itself would not win such a war, and that's also assuming that the UK wouldn't fight for America, regardless of its EU affiliation.

Everyone is forgetting a few important things here...

1. The United States is broke. Bush came out with his 2005 fiscal budget a while back. He spent every single taxpayer cent that will be collected for 2004 even before he thought of paying down the debt... or even the interest on the debt. The debt is then bought by other countries (Japan is the #1 debt buyer for US Debt). This has been done ever since the US Government stopped running a 5% budget surplus every year from the mid 20's to late 50's. What happens when the other countires come knocking and demand their money back, and Bush cannot give out money because there is no more? One must remember that the US has the largest debt, and largest debt burden per citizen of any country.

Why do you think Precious metals and foreign currency (Such as Rands, Pounds, Euros, and Francs) have gained so much in the last 2 years when compared to the US Dollar? Hell, even my currency (Canadian Dollar) has gained also: up approx. 21 cents vs. US Dollar or a gain of 33.9% in roughly 2 years.

I give the US 5 years on this current track before the US economy implodes, and throws it into the largest recession since the crash of '29.

Bush cannot mobilize for full-scale invasion of Europe when he cannot do these two things: buy refined oil and pay for his military's daily upkeep.

2. Fierce patriotism, on the part of European Citizens, will force out the United States in any invasion attempt.

3. Homeland protests against war with the European Union may become revolt. Just think of all those immigrants from European nations, and the many that take thier ancestry seriously. I doubt that Bush can hold the nation together in this scenario... He only did get 51% of the popular vote...

4. Alpha-Orion... Many European nations still enforce the policy of conscription. You turn 18 and you do 2 years in the military. that way, everyone knows how to shoot a gun.

I have to agree with Poly...most historians will tell you that no one really won WWI, it was just our "allied" culture, if you can call it that, that proclaimed it a win for the homefront. The fact that within 30 years, there was another World War, proves it. Europe got beat around during WWI. Germany got blamed, got pissed off, therefore the people didn't care that Hitler was a dictator, and then starting kicking the rest of Europe's ass until England made a stand.

No, WW1 was a defeat for Germany. They requested an armistice, which the French Marechal Foch signed in behalf of the Allies, based on the inconditional demilitarization of germany, among other consequences. There was no question of negotiation.

Turkey, Macedonia and Romania aren't EU nations.

If we're talking protracted war, they will be. They've all already applied for membership.

Hmmmm.

Force wise, the US would win. But when you add in geographic regions, it would be a tie. There is NO way either nation could get a foothold on the other. The only way would be in the US invaded parts of Africa, or the EU invaded Mexico or Canada, and they used them as staging points.

If it did happen, even then, the US would win a small victory. They have much superior long range bombers, and EU anti-aircraft weapons probally would be ineffective, causing massive economic damage to the EU, thus allowing the US to win a slow war, with probally tens of millions of casualties on both sides.

And what are the Euros going to do with this vast population? Arm them? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Untrained Europeans with assault rifles....that's funny. To keep it fair, can we send our inner-city gangbangers as a first wave? They can't shoot straight either. (I'd say send hillbillies and rednecks, but where do you think the US gets all it's snipers and sergeants from?)

Haha...although the gangbangers, given the right weapons (a gat, and uzi, and a mp3 player) would tear up some yokles in the apls...haha

and this is why this thread is all in all retarded. it's a "my penis is bigger than your's" contest. unless both people pull down their pants, or the EU and US go to war, no one will really know.

Indeed a good point, how many Americans would actually stand for this? Hello second civil war!

Hmmmm.

Force wise, the US would win. But when you add in geographic regions, it would be a tie. There is NO way either nation could get a foothold on the other. The only way would be in the US invaded parts of Africa, or the EU invaded Mexico or Canada, and they used them as staging points.

If it did happen, even then, the US would win a small victory. They have much superior long range bombers, and EU anti-aircraft weapons probally would be ineffective, causing massive economic damage to the EU, thus allowing the US to win a slow war, with probally tens of millions of casualties on both sides.

Actually we have much the same weapons system as the US, for one thing they installed anti missle defence systems in an RAF base in England for example.

Indeed a good point, how many Americans would actually stand for this? Hello second civil war!

So some teenage punks who listen to green day don't like what's going on...

Don't be fooled by CNN or the morons on this site. America, while divided among issues during election time, can easily band together. You'd be amazed at how much the liberals would count on and support Bush after New York or LA got bombed by the EU.

And what are the Euros going to do with this vast population? Arm them? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Untrained Europeans with assault rifles....that's funny. To keep it fair, can we send our inner-city gangbangers as a first wave? They can't shoot straight either. (I'd say send hillbillies and rednecks, but where do you think the US gets all it's snipers and sergeants from?)

Many europeen countries have mandatory military service.
That means that all adult male citizens have at least one year of military training, plus repetiotion exercises. Also, norway, the little peacefull country Im from, is, i believe, the country in the world with the most guns per citizen. Any swede will tell you that were all hillbillies, even the ones living in the relatively large urban areas, and everyone loves hunting.

France defeated the invasion and prevented it from reaching Paris (Before the UK and US had major forces involved and things got bogged down in trench warfare) That counts as a win in my eyes.

Well the french actually used a tactical German blunder. The Germans turned away from Paris to first defeat the rest of the French army and so offering their Flank to french forces in Paris. The French then attacked that weakly defended flank and so "defeated" the Gremans.

I'm surprised so many people think the EU will win. Accept for France, GB and Italy the military strength is pretty weak. (I'm not a american but a Dutch fellow:))

How do you justify the support of each nation? I mean, how do you know?

Best guess threat analysis, and popular support within each nation's populace. Most of the member states of the EU are TINY, and haven't fought anything since WWII. They'd most likely stay neutral, since any combat damage would completely wreck their economies. Poland and Greece would side with the USA, due to their close ties with the USA (what's the second largest Polish city on the planet? Chicago). Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would support the USA because we've supported their right to exist since 1939. Most of the rest of Europe was a wild-ass guess, based on the US' track record with each country.

Most or Europe just wants to be left alone and enjoy itself. It's only some of the older, more power-mad nations like France and Krautland that would ever have any delusions of greatness, and that's where the main threat would come from. Flatten Paris and Berlin, and the rest of the war is a piece of cake (heck, witht he popular support the US still has in Normandy, we could possibly land there unopposed)

Well the french actually used a tactical German blunder. The Germans turned away from Paris to first defeat the rest of the French army and so offering their Flank to french forces in Paris. The French then attacked that weakly defended flank and so "defeated" the Gremans.

Aha, the cowardly french uses _Tactics_ to win the war. That doesn't count then, does it.

Hmmm.....i don't see the US winning... since it is true that the EU has a lot of military might even though US has it aswell. I think the main point here would be money... NO ONE would lend money to the US so they could attack the EU. And right now, they can't afford another war. They have 480 million(or was it billion) dollars of debt money from investors from allover the world and it's just a matter of time when the investors stop investing money in the US.

I also saw a post here saying that after ww2 the US had such a boost in the economy that nothing like it had ever been or ever will be seen. I would like to point out that the economical growth of China for example, is 10% per YEAR. And i think it's much greater than the one US had. And anyway the WAR boosted the american economy because they had to keep the war going so there were jobs so there was money= economical growth... China is doing the whole thing on their own, without a war...

peace

Easy, build more. In a protracted war this is certainly possible...

Plus, the UK and France can rely on former/present colonies with which they have defensive ties. Eg, Jamaica, Belize, French Guiana, Tahiti...

World War One. They proportionally inflicted and received the most casualties. And won.

Building carriers takes YEARS. And where are American cruise missiles while the ships are under construction?

I don't think we have to worry about the Jamacian army marching on Washington any time soon...

And would the French have won WWI before or after their troops mutinied and went home? Lots of dead Froggies means they don't know how to duck, not how to win wars.

lol, no. I hate to say it, but Europe and Japan's economic growth were due to the USA's aid.

Yeah, but they didn't start exporting in any great way until the 1950s, NOT the 40s. And until about 1980 or so, "Made in Japan" made most people laugh.

Best guess threat analysis, and popular support within each nation's populace. Most of the member states of the EU are TINY, and haven't fought anything since WWII. They'd most likely stay neutral, since any combat damage would completely wreck their economies. Poland and Greece would side with the USA, due to their close ties with the USA (what's the second largest Polish city on the planet? Chicago). Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would support the USA because we've supported their right to exist since 1939. Most of the rest of Europe was a wild-ass guess, based on the US' track record with each country.

Most or Europe just wants to be left alone and enjoy itself. It's only some of the older, more power-mad nations like France and Krautland that would ever have any delusions of greatness, and that's where the main threat would come from. Flatten Paris and Berlin, and the rest of the war is a piece of cake (heck, witht he popular support the US still has in Normandy, we could possibly land there unopposed)


Huge communities of Immigrants don't mean much about war support or not. There where huge Italian communities in the US in WW2, and that didn't meant anything. I am a citizen of one of those tiny states. I ashure you, should Europe be attacked by the US, we would fight alongside with Europe. The fact that you supported Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania right's to exist is indeed meaningful, but in case of an attack, that could change.
And flatten Paris and Berlin, and you Indeed would have a united Europe fighting you.

Hmmm.....i don't see the US winning... since it is true that the EU has a lot of military might even though US has it aswell. I think the main point here would be money... NO ONE would lend money to the US so they could attack the EU. And right now, they can't afford another war. They have 480 million(or was it billion) dollars of debt money from investors from allover the world and it's just a matter of time when the investors stop investing money in the US.

I also saw a post here saying that after ww2 the US had such a boost in the economy that nothing like it had ever been or ever will be seen. I would like to point out that the economical growth of China for example, is 10% per YEAR. And i think it's much greater than the one US had. And anyway the WAR boosted the american economy because they had to keep the war going so there were jobs so there was money= economical growth... China is doing the whole thing on their own, without a war...

peace

Italy has one as well, a second under construction. Spain has one as well. And France has 2..

Italy and Spain's carriers are ASW helicopter carriers, that can carry maybe six Harriers each. Our high-endurance Coast Guard corvettes can sink 'em (although we'd probably use LA class subs just for fun)

And isn't the Foch about ready to be sold off to India? A 35 year old carrier with 30 year old planes doesn't equal much in the way of force projection if you can't get them out of the north Atlantic (or did the French navy finally replace their carrier planes with the Rafale? Which still has no range, nor do the French have carrierborne inflight refueling capacity)

peace

AGREE! FLOWER POWER FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm surprised so many people think the EU will win.

Would win...not will win

And it's just a poll. You don't have to be educated to vote in a poll...and you don't have to explain why you voted in the poll. Therefore, most mindless liberals (in contrast to the ones with minds...I'm not flaming) who "hate america" will vote that America loses just because it's an option.

The AIM-9X is based on purchased Russian technology, I believe.

Possibly, but the main airframe and base technology of the AIM-9 series is still American. Besides, the Russians are so poor that theu sell off all their good stuff for export, and rely on defence with crap from the 1970s (and earlier)

AGREE! FLOWER POWER FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


YUP, Peace is the way! The ONLY way.. at least for everyone not in the BUSH administration....

Building carriers takes YEARS. And where are American cruise missiles while the ships are under construction?

I don't think we have to worry about the Jamacian army marching on Washington any time soon...

And would the French have won WWI before or after their troops mutinied and went home? Lots of dead Froggies means they don't know how to duck, not how to win wars.


Wasnt the US buildng carriers in a matter of months in WW2?
Technically, they won the war. Even if they took a bazillion casualties, the Germans kneeled first.

France defeated the invasion and prevented it from reaching Paris (Before the UK and US had major forces involved and things got bogged down in trench warfare) That counts as a win in my eyes.

Sure...insult the British army. There's a good way to win friends. The professional British army exterminated itself in the opening weeks of WWI, acting as a rearguard for the Belgians, and bogged down the German arny before the Froggies could finish deciding which pair of blue pants to wear to the battle. The French then said thank you, ignored the Brit's advice about digging trenches, and wandered around aimlessly waiting to get shot. By 1916, France was sick and tired of defending itself, and wanted to go home. If the USA didn't intervene, WWI would have been won by the Krauts by spring 1917.

Wasnt the US buildng carriers in a matter of months in WW2?
Technically, they won the war. Even if they took a bazillion casualties, the Germans kneeled first.

Still, the Germans kneeled not only to the french. No one says that France can't win a war...they just can't win a war without help.

I'm glad to see that most people at least seem to agree that the battle would be in *europe*, and not in the US. Hell, that's half the battle right there.

No way the US could invade & hold europe. But I would be very surprised if the US didn't control much of the skies over europe, and didn't bomb the crap out of defense- and industry-related sites. Too much of the modern weaponry that NATO countries use is controlled by US technology - eg: GPS, tactical data links. Yes, I know Europe is putting up it's own GPS-like constellation, but it isn't always as easy as flipping a switch on the GPS-using equipment. *Some* of the new-tech forces of NATO will depend on GPS. *Most* of the new-tech NATO forces depend on US data links. Denying enemy access to those technologies is quite easy.

But, no way the current administration - nor likely any administration - could hold this country together if we attacked and/or invaded Europe... :shrug:

And would the French have won WWI before or after their troops mutinied and went home? Lots of dead Froggies means they don't know how to duck, not how to win wars.

Oh my GOD! What is it with the Americans and the world wars? Noone in Europe really cares about them (at least not in the sense that this guy seems to) and yet it would seem that some people (at least one) see them as a demonstration of Europe's armies! If the US went to war with the EU they wouldnt stand a chance - they're too used to shooting people with AK47s and bombing civillians (now THATs a stereotype).

people were saying that Europe would bicker and couldnt unite. but i think u wud find that 4 watever reason if the us attacked the EU they would band together pretty darn quickly. its amazing how quickly old quarrles can be forgotten if the EU was to be in a time of danger.

The EU would beat the US, but with huge casulties

This would never happen, at least not in our lifetime.

I for one would refuse to fight in such a war.

Hmm in a nuclear war, both would destroy eachother.

If the US tried to invade the EU, their groundtroops would run like beheaded chikens in all directions, regarding the weak training and less quality of armement compared to the more modern groungtroops of the EU, never forget that the Leopard 2A6 outclasses all Abrahams to, according to all sources, the 120mm gun of the Leopard is still not sold to the US thatwant to install that "ubergun" in their Abrahams.

In the Air: 100% victory for the US regarding the weak numbers of equal plaines in EU forces (Rafale, F16, F-18, Eurofighter aso). Weak stealth capacities to for EU.

But nuclear:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/france/ (browse the different sections)

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Fra...enalRecent.html

http://www.netmarine.net/forces/fost/index.htm

http://www.netmarine.net/armes/msbs/

http://www.netmarine.net/forces/fost/index.htm

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/b...004001630.shtml

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/d...ire/index.shtml


Today our nuclear arsenal is composed of a :

1) naval element with 5 submarines :

- 2 older ones :
Indomptable (1976)
Inflexible (1985)
armed with 16 M4 missiles, each with 6 TN71 warheads of 150 kt, 5000 km range

- 3 new generation ones and 1 in construction :
Triomphant (1997)
Téméraire (1999)
Vigilant (2004)
Terrible (2010)
for the moment armed with 16 M45 missiles, each with 6 TN75 warheads of 150 kt, 6000 km range
In the next years the new M51 missile will enter in service : 6 very stealth TN75 warheads of 150 kt, 8000 km range

2) aerial component with Mirage 2000N (air force) and Super Etendard (navy) aircrafts that will be replaced by Rafale aircrafts.
They fire the ASMP missile : 1x TN81 warhead of 300kt, 300km range. The missile will be replaced by the ASMP-A missile of 500km range in 2007. We have around 150 of these missiles. The aircrafts are supported by C-135 tankers.

The former ground based components were all disbanded :
- about 40 silo-based missile (S4 missiles, 3500-4000km range with 3 TN35 warheads of 20 kt)
- tactical theater ballistic missiles : Pluton (on an AMX-30 chassis) and later Hadès (on a truck) - 15-25 kt missiles of about 150km range.
- nuclear test range in Mururoa dismantled and replaced by simulation programs

Sorry but Canadians are almost Americans. Not every province in Canada is liberal. Alberta for one. Besides since Ontario and Quebec are the most populated areas, of course they'd vote liberal. Remember your opinions do not represent every Canadians opinions. It goes beyond politics, you know cultural and what-not.

Believe it or not, the Canuks really aren't all that much like Americans. Sure we wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, and eat the same food, but that's about it.

Canada's national identity was formed by various losers: French explorers conquered by the Brits after the Seven Year's War, Royallists expelled by the Americans after 1791, and to a smaller extent, indians, Confederates and the Irish, all of whom just lost their land. The Royallists, especially, formed a deep paranioa and distrust of the worth of the common man, and wrote Canadian law to suppress individuality as much as possible. Canadians believe in the common good and in the majority over the individual, and like a large "Daddy knows Best" type of government. True, they're "free", in the sense that their current populist socialist government allows Canadians to wander around at will and gives them free stuff, but they're not "free" in the same sence as Americans, who believe in the primacy of the individual over the group, and dislike large central governments.

why cant the Common Wealth come or anyother places like most of the places near Cuba (cant remember the names there are so many) they are EU country occupied. We could use Canada as a landing ground and Russia is like half of the landmass of Europe (plus arnt they in the EU) dragging China, Vietnam, Loas, Cuba, NK,the Comunist countries in cause comon Russia isnt exactly free of comunism. It would be basically the world against the USA and the places like Guam and the like. I really think the USA would avert a war like this but i vote the EU cause the Scots would charge and kill mwhahahahahaha.(Sorry for the long sentence)

We will rise again

Scotland forever and Hashnen forever and Asdolin rules!

Oh my GOD! What is it with the Americans and the world wars? Noone in Europe really cares about them (at least not in the sense that this guy seems to) and yet it would seem that some people (at least one) see them as a demonstration of Europe's armies! If the US went to war with the EU they wouldnt stand a chance - they're too used to shooting people with AK47s and bombing civillians (now THATs a stereotype).

AK47's? That's not even a stereotype...that's a blatant disregard for military history and an admission of stupidity. M16's my good man. I don't know why Americans would be firing soviet guns. As for the two World Wars, perhaps Europeans are too busy arguing amongst each other about what nation's history is more glorious to care about such world changing events. Dont' get me started on stereotypes and and don't start a flame war. Argue the issue at hand.

Hmm in a nuclear war, both would destroy eachother.

If the US tried to invade the EU, their groundtroops would run like beheaded chikens in all directions, regarding the weak training and less quality of armement compared to the more modern groungtroops of the EU,

I highly doubt that the United States government does not have nuclear weapons that no one knows about. Such stats would be impossible to find, even for someone as resourceful as you.

Also, I love how the most powerful military in the world are "beheaded chikens" in your mind. Surely anyone could beat America...with our useless forces and all.

Believe it or not, the Canuks really aren't all that much like Americans. Sure we wear the same clothes, drive the same cars, and eat the same food, but that's about it.

Canada's national identity was formed by various losers: French explorers conquered by the Brits after the Seven Year's War, Royallists expelled by the Americans after 1791, and to a smaller extent, indians, Confederates and the Irish, all of whom just lost their land. The Royallists, especially, formed a deep paranioa and distrust of the worth of the common man, and wrote Canadian law to suppress individuality as much as possible. Canadians believe in the common good and in the majority over the individual, and like a large "Daddy knows Best" type of government. True, they're "free", in the sense that their current populist socialist government allows Canadians to wander around at will and gives them free stuff, but they're not "free" in the same sence as Americans, who believe in the primacy of the individual over the group, and dislike large central governments.



Damn, im glad i dont have to listen to your right wing classification of my country. (theyre evil, they care about each other, the red bastards)

Indeed a good point, how many Americans would actually stand for this? Hello second civil war!

Not at all. The Red States generally are pro-isolationists and generally dislike foreigners of any sort, especially ones that don't speak English. We also have all the guns and make up the vast bulk of ex-service members. While the urban scum might bitch about a war and start trouble, the Nationa Guard and Militias of each state would quickly suppress civil unrest. While it wouldn't be the happiest thing our troops would be doing, the precedent for shooting anarchists, communists and foreigners is already there (1870s-1900), and most Americans thought it was a good thing.

AK47's? That's not even a stereotype...that's a blatant disregard for military history and an admission of stupidity. M16's my good man. I don't know why Americans would be firing soviet guns. As for the two World Wars, perhaps Europeans are too busy arguing amongst each other about what nation's history is more glorious to care about such world changing events. Dont' get me started on stereotypes and and don't start a flame war. Argue the issue at hand.

I do believe or good man ment that the americans are shooting "people with AK47s" not shoting "people" with AK47s.

I like the part of red bastards thats funny but if anyone asks im rooting for you side ;) and so is the thing about drinkable wine this should be renamed jokes r' us :sniper:

Huge communities of Immigrants don't mean much about war support or not. There where huge Italian communities in the US in WW2, and that didn't meant anything. I am a citizen of one of those tiny states. I ashure you, should Europe be attacked by the US, we would fight alongside with Europe. The fact that you supported Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania right's to exist is indeed meaningful, but in case of an attack, that could change.
And flatten Paris and Berlin, and you Indeed would have a united Europe fighting you.

Italy deposed Musolini in late 1943 and surrendered, basically as soon as American forces landed on the boot. Besides some potshots in North Africa, the Italian military and the US have never fought each other, and never will. Too many Dagos in the USA!

Huge numbers of recent immigrants DOES indeed mean something. It means that there are hundreds of thousands of people wanting to immigrate to the USA, meaning that they generally like the USA. Cross-pollinization of cultures breeds friendship between nations. I highly doubt anyone in the USA would want to go to war with Greece, Poland or Italy, but France.....we couldn't get them signed up fast enough!

did i scare everyone away??

I do believe or good man ment that the americans are shooting "people with AK47s" not shoting "people" with AK47s.

Well if I was to say "I shot a man with a gun" would you assume that I shot him with the weapon or that I shot a man holding a gun? Also, it was in a compound sentence with the other part being "bombing civilians. Shooting and bombing are both agressive acts meant to murder and therefore from how it was written, it should be taken like I took it.

Obviously "RandomNames" would take your stance on this one now to avoid looking foolish. Regardless this is all nitpicking.

The US has a Navy that could steamroller the combined Navies of Europe. The US also has thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles. Europe can't even project force onto the North American Landmass. The US would simply bomb Europe into submission, just like they always do when they go to war. Of course, the EU is one of the USA's largest export markets, so the entire thing is moot.

[QUOTE=Alpha Orion]Italy deposed Musolini in late 1943 and surrendered, basically as soon as American forces landed on the boot. Besides some potshots in North Africa, the Italian military and the US have never fought each other, and never will. Too many Dagos in the USA!

for your information Dago's are spaniards,
italtiens are Ities

While it wouldn't be the happiest thing our troops would be doing, the precedent for shooting anarchists, communists and foreigners is already there (1870s-1900), and most Americans thought it was a good thing.

That precedent is also over 100 years old according to your information. We now live in a global marketplace as well as a global community. Things, ideas, and people change in the course of a century.

Not at all. The Red States generally are pro-isolationists and generally dislike foreigners of any sort, especially ones that don't speak English. We also have all the guns and make up the vast bulk of ex-service members. While the urban scum might bitch about a war and start trouble, the Nationa Guard and Militias of each state would quickly suppress civil unrest. While it wouldn't be the happiest thing our troops would be doing, the precedent for shooting anarchists, communists and foreigners is already there (1870s-1900), and most Americans thought it was a good thing.

Most states were decided "red" or "blue" in the election by margins not greater than 10%. A lot were even closer. You cannot classify parts of america by "red" or "blue" states. That's foolish. There are many people in the mid-west who voted for Kerry and vice versa, just not a majority.

[QUOTE=Alpha Orion]Italy deposed Musolini in late 1943 and surrendered, basically as soon as American forces landed on the boot. Besides some potshots in North Africa, the Italian military and the US have never fought each other, and never will. Too many Dagos in the USA!

for your information Dago's are spaniards,
italtiens are Ities

no...dago's are italians.

my best friend is really italian and we always asked him "so...how'd your day go?" and stupid things like that. Trust me.

day go hahaha lol proves my point about the jokes

Well if I was to say "I shot a man with a gun" would you assume that I shot him with the weapon or that I shot a man holding a gun?

Id say the sentence is unclear, but im not a native english speaker. Anyway, if you assume everyone except yourself is an idiot, you might prove yourself right, but it doesent mean you are.

Most states were decided "red" or "blue" in the election by margins not greater than 10%. A lot were even closer. You cannot classify parts of america by "red" or "blue" states. That's foolish. There are many people in the mid-west who voted for Kerry and vice versa, just not a majority.

This was true of the Kerry states, less so for the Bush states. I'll use 20% as a margin; 10% is almost everything.

... as you can see, only 3 of the blues (plus DC) are above 20%, while 17 of the reds are. That's a big difference, especially since Texas and NY basically cancel each other out and California was about 10%.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/electionmap/chart2.html

Id say the sentence is unclear, but im not a native english speaker. Anyway, if you assume everyone except yourself is an idiot, you might prove yourself right, but it doesent mean you are.

I'm just saying that's how english works and that was the point he stated. Since you are not a native english speaker, here's a tip. There are some things about this bastard language that cannot be taught...only developed through experience. American English is often considered one of the more difficult languages, for it rarely makes sense, is full of short cuts, and breaks its own laws.

you can't forget the joint strike fighter. the F15 is also an incredible fighter and has never been shot down. the US's airforce is by far the best in the world, along with the navy. the air and sea battle would easilly be the US's. the US could launch cruise missles into EU's important industrial factories or into EU's leadership's buildings. also, the US troops have the most fighting expieriance, so they would have a definate advantage.

I do not doubt the quality of the technology however I severely doubt the training of your forces. America lets anyone and anything into the military, your troops are trained however they are still poor quality for some reason i don't know why. European forces are are superior and as for a protracted campaign i doubt it, everyone would come to their senses. As for which side the UK would take being a British bloke myself i would say we would take Europes side, as guess what most Brits now hate the good old USA, we are sick and tired of your nation acting like the big cheese when clearly you can't even work out the finer points of democracy.

The Uk would join Europe as its simple it would be the smartest thing to do. The USA’s navy is spread thin across the globe. And I may just say that Europe would win the war for one simple reason.

WHO WOULD CONTROL THE OIL.

Why we would of course.

The US has a Navy that could steamroller the combined Navies of Europe. The US also has thousands upon thousands of cruise missiles. Europe can't even project force onto the North American Landmass. The US would simply bomb Europe into submission, just like they always do when they go to war. Of course, the EU is one of the USA's largest export markets, so the entire thing is moot.

ok so American, in theory has conquerored the whole of the EU. Have you hered of passive resistance?

The european's don't work, don't contribute to the American economy only making enough to survive. American finds it self with several trillion dollar/euro/pound/swedish krona dead wait round its neck. Europe already has an infustructure so america can't introduce it normal imperialist routine of setting up sweetshops everywhere. Europe would be an expensive hobby with no real reward. And seeing as America would have to borrow money to fund all this war (sour point debt boys) japan would make a field day. Eventually America would pull out or just hit resession and spiral out of being being a superpower faster then it already is doing.
Ten years later America is paying through the nose and europe begins to trade with other nations, in fact with itself! America pulls out,
Advance Britannia God Save the King!

Ironic really that europe's escape from opcupation comes from its former colonial past.......


Oh but Americans don't get irony do they oh well......

Damn, im glad i dont have to listen to your right wing classification of my country. (theyre evil, they care about each other, the red bastards)

Sorry, but I'm just quoting what you Canuks say about yourselves. Howsabout reading something besides Manga once in awhile?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0771022751/qid=1100022779/sr=1-24/ref=sr_1_24/002-4090574-3502421?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0771042175/ref=pd_sim_books_2/002-4090574-3502421?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195416880/qid=1100022779/sr=1-27/ref=sr_1_27/002-4090574-3502421?v=glance&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521579120/qid=1100022954/sr=1-52/ref=sr_1_52/002-4090574-3502421?v=glance&s=books

And one of my favorites on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0143014226/qid=1100023172/sr=1-169/ref=sr_1_169/002-4090574-3502421?v=glance&s=books

This was true of the Kerry states, less so for the Bush states. I'll use 20% as a margin; 10% is almost everything.

... as you can see, only 3 of the blues (plus DC) are above 20%, while 17 of the reds are. That's a big difference, especially since Texas and NY basically cancel each other out and California was about 10%.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/electionmap/chart2.html

Still, my point was that you cannot classify people under what their state voted. I'm going to college and living in Pennsylvania. I'm sure someone has guessed that I'm conservative...and yet my state, an important one in the election, went for Kerry. I also have a democrat for a governor. That being said, I know plenty of conservatives throughout the state...

There is a way this could happen: Galelio

Europes GPS system launches in 2007, the US military has already drawn up contingency plans to attack it. The GPS system is entirely controlled by the US military and is a huge source of income. in 2007 Europe along with China and others will switch to Galelio, costing the US alot. This would of course be a major source of conflict between the US and Europe and China

[QUOTE=Alpha Orion]Italy deposed Musolini in late 1943 and surrendered, basically as soon as American forces landed on the boot. Besides some potshots in North Africa, the Italian military and the US have never fought each other, and never will. Too many Dagos in the USA!

for your information Dago's are spaniards,
italtiens are Ities

In England, maybe. Here in the USA Dagos, WOPs, Eye-Ties and a host of other epithets all refer to Italians (talk to a New Yorker for all the terms). There are so few Spaniards in the USA that we lump 'em together with all the other wetbacks and spics.

Oh but Americans don't get irony do they oh well......

and the french are cowards, the germans drunks, and the british have horrid teeth?

any other stereotypes while I sit on my ass during what's supposed to be my workday, watch fox news, and eat mcdonalds?

and the UK would never join the EU.

Eh? The UK has been a member of the EU since 1973.

and the french are cowards, the germans drunks, and the british have horrid teeth?

any other stereotypes while I sit on my ass during what's supposed to be my workday, watch fox news, and eat mcdonalds?

Its not my fault I have bad teeth

Still, my point was that you cannot classify people under what their state voted. I'm going to college and living in Pennsylvania. I'm sure someone has guessed that I'm conservative...and yet my state, an important one in the election, went for Kerry. I also have a democrat for a governor. That being said, I know plenty of conservatives throughout the state...

Actually, a county by county breakdown is more telling:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Except for major metropolitan areas and a few rural areas that won the indian vote, virtually no one in the nation supported the Democrat's agenda. The rural areas of the nation aren't full of cousin-screwing, poor morons. Mostly, we're moderates that don't like the excesses bred by urban decadence. But that's nothing new: western civilization has had problems between the rural and urban populations since the Romans.

*sigh* More arrogant Americans. They never did listen, in WWI when they first came over, the Canucks and the Brits politely suggested that wearing helmets would be a good idea, and that they'd already tried charging entrenched machine guns, and that wouldn't work to well.
But of course, the American knew that they had superior technology and training, and that the Germans were simply inferior Europeans - who could stand up to the might of America?

So until the war ended the Americans suffered a significantly higher percentage of casualties per assault, even though they tended to commit less troops.

Perhaps you Americans should read the diaries of Canadian, British, and French soldiers during the first and second world wars, and decide what they thought of your "contribution" to the war efforts. Let's just say they were less than flattering regarding American martial skill.

Regarding as to who would win, EU vs USA . . . the global economies are so much intertwined, and the costs of waging modern warfare on a large scale so preposterous, that the economy of both sides would collapse.

And to you Americans who would say "Well Greece and Poland would side with us . . ." That seems like a rather arrogant comment. At the very least, they would remain Neutral, if not wholeheartedly support the European Union against an American agressor. If you were Poland or Greece, would you side with the Americans, and immediately surround yourself with enemies? Only if you were a lunatic with a deathwish!

Too many Americans are taught propoganda instead of history. Their education bears a strong resemblance to that under the Napoleanic code in that regard! At least once they reach university and beyond, many become more enlightened!

I'm just saying that's how english works and that was the point he stated. Since you are not a native english speaker, here's a tip. There are some things about this bastard language that cannot be taught...only developed through experience. American English is often considered one of the more difficult languages, for it rarely makes sense, is full of short cuts, and breaks its own laws.

Gah. Irony, ahh, americans dont get that, i keep forgetting.
Anyways, the point was that since the sentence could be interpreted both ways, you had to find out what its author meant by the context. Since I assumed he wasnt an idiot, contrary to your assumtion, i read it as "shooting people (who has) ak47s. Since he talked about what US troops was used to figting, this fitted nicely.

And, actually,english is not a very difficult language, not even the backwards way some americans speak it. It just doesnt seem very refined with double denials and all that backwater "I'm to lazy to speak proper"-stuff.

Actually, a county by county breakdown is more telling:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Except for major metropolitan areas and a few rural areas that won the indian vote, virtually no one in the nation supported the Democrat's agenda. The rural areas of the nation aren't full of cousin-screwing, poor morons. Mostly, we're moderates that don't like the excesses bred by urban decadence. But that's nothing new: western civilization has had problems between the rural and urban populations since the Romans.

Exactly. Take away Pittsburgh and Philly....and see who wins Pennsylvania.

Gah. Irony, ahh, americans dont get that, i keep forgetting.
Anyways, the point was that since the sentence could be interpreted both ways, you had to find out what its author meant by the context. Since I assumed he wasnt an idiot, contrary to your assumtion, i read it as "shooting people (who has) ak47s. Since he talked about what US troops was used to figting, this fitted nicely.

And, actually,english is not a very difficult language, not even the backwards way some americans speak it. It just doesnt seem very refined with double denials and all that backwater "I'm to lazy to speak proper"-stuff.

Well...I was taught english by my parents at a young age, but I moved to the US from Russia 13 years ago. I didn't seem to have a problem adaption to the language, but I've heard people say that they have. Once again, if I had said that...it probably would have come off as arrogance on my part.

Also, there are plenty of idiots on the internet, and they all seem to gather in general forums such as these. Perhaps I was wrong to assume of his lack of intelligence, but I don't think I was.

I feel we maybe venturing from the subject here.

I feel we maybe venturing from the subject here.

It's page 16...I'm amazed we lasted this long.

Point is, it was a stupid subject to begin with. The EU and the US would never go to war, just as Star Trek and Star Wars will never fight each other, and the world will never know which one of us has the biggest penis. It's one of those type of threads.

I feel we maybe venturing from the subject here.

Agreed... Back on topic people!

Sorry, but I'm just quoting what you Canuks say about yourselves. Howsabout reading something besides Manga once in awhile?

I reacted to the condescending way you talked about canada, expressing relief that you wouldn't bore me with similar nonsence about MY country. Im not canadian, nor do I only read japanese comics (though I do read those too). I actually believe i read quite a lot more than most people, and altough most is fiction, (Ibsen, Shakespeare, Berry, Udall, Lägerquist ++), I also have titles from Mcquail, Baylis&Smith, Edwards & Penney(sic.). And yes, my means of reproduction are bigger than yours.

It's page 16...I'm amazed we lasted this long.

Point is, it was a stupid subject to begin with. The EU and the US would never go to war, just as Star Trek and Star Wars will never fight each other, and the world will never know which one of us has the biggest penis. It's one of those type of threads.
In the military field the US has undoubtably the biggest one. One nation alone spending more than the 22 following for defense (and only a few of them are european nations just as Britain (if you count it as Europe), France, e.g.). Russia alone spents about the same than France and Germany accounted together. And that is just about 15% of the spending of the US.
The United States could win every war against any other power in this world. That is the reality of a world with one remaining super power.
Though economically European countries and the US have common interests. 98% of the trade is dispute free (you of course only hear about the 2% disputes because only bad news are good news as we all know) and no one has an interest in a serious crisis of the relationship.

Besides Europe out numbers the USA and due to apparent disregard for liberty we also take money and give it to children in the form of education in subjects like history and geography.

Maybe I'm stereotypeing so I offer americans this quiz,

In which continent is Borneo?

What is the Capital of Kenya?

Apart from being a thunderbird who was Virgil?

What language do they speak in Nigeria?

Name the world's three largest rivers,

Which city was destroyed during the Punic wars?

How come you only see american troops in saving private ryan when British, New Zealand, Australian, Rhodesian, Free polish, free french, canadian and south African troops all took part in the campaign?

Good luck and no cheating!

Besides Europe out numbers the USA and due to apparent disregard for liberty we also take money and give it to children in the form of education in subjects like history and geography.

Maybe I'm stereotypeing so I offer americans this quiz,

In which continent is Borneo?

What is the Capital of Kenya?

Apart from being a thunderbird who was Virgil?

What language do they speak in Nigeria?

Name the world's three largest rivers,

Which city was destroyed during the Punic wars?

How come you only see american troops in saving private ryan when British, New Zealand, Australian, Rhodesian, Free polish, free french, canadian and south African troops all took part in the campaign?

Good luck and no cheating!

Yes you are...

1. Asia I think...south east...

2. Nairobi

3. haha... a famous Roman poet...

4. English is the official language...and probably some tribal ones...

5. hmm...Amazon, Nile, and the Yangtze? Perhaps the mississippi? Not too sure. What exactly do you mean by largest? Length? Width? I don't know

6. Carthage

7. well...because it's an American film commenting on American bravery...perhaps it concentrated on only the Americans in battle? lol...I'm not going to say what you want to hear.

Now...except for 5 because you told me not to cheat...and I'm sure one if not more of my rivers are correct...

I'm not that uninformed...am I?

Allow me to explain, who would win boils down to which place has the better resilliance to being bombed, this has been demonstrated in both the world wars by the vatly superior rationing and women on the homefront by the allied forces compared with Germany. America consists of grotequely obese stupid people who's idea of rationg would be a 20,000 callorie a day diet. As for people who don't normally work mucking in with the war effort you can forget it because they're lazy arses. This stuff about the american naval supremecy its rubbish, they may have more ships but when it comes down to tactics and experience in a naval blockade the british are vastly superior, I shall leave you with a great millatary quote when a british and american battleship met.

American Admiral to British - Hello how does it feel to be working with the biggest navy in the world?

British admiral - how does it feel to be working with the best.

Not only is the US military way overstretched...it has a small problem with friendly fire. They seem o shoot their own guys or their allies alot as seen in Vietnam with them Napalming their own troops. They also shot down a British RAF Harrier in the 2nd Gulf War...how dumb can u get. Plus aren't 60% of American's overweight? How are they going to attacked the EU with an army of fatties with McDonalds for rations?

Great work in Iraq by the way :/

Besides Europe out numbers the USA and due to apparent disregard for liberty we also take money and give it to children in the form of education in subjects like history and geography.


Agreed, however. We don't get enough history and especially geography, and it is made to be boring so that anyone who doesn't take an interest like I do doesn't pay attention. I've taken advanced (AP) classes in high school however, and have done a good bit of study on my own for various reasons. If it paid anything, I'd have gone to school to be a historian.

However, like news, all history is biased. I'm sure you being from england have a different account of the war of 1812 and the american revolution than I do.

I hope that someday soon killer aliens will invade so we can actually stand together instead of bickering pointlessly and endlessly...

Allow me to explain, who would win boils down to which place has the better resilliance to being bombed, this has been demonstrated in both the world wars by the vatly superior rationing and women on the homefront by the allied forces compared with Germany. America consists of grotequely obese stupid people who's idea of rationg would be a 20,000 callorie a day diet. As for people who don't normally work mucking in with the war effort you can forget it because they're lazy arses. This stuff about the american naval supremecy its rubbish, they may have more ships but when it comes down to tactics and experience in a naval blockade the british are vastly superior, I shall leave you with a great millatary quote when a british and american battleship met.

American Admiral to British - Hello how does it feel to be working with the biggest navy in the world?

British admiral - how does it feel to be working with the best.

...and you're trying to make people think highly of the british? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're all arrogant, racist, morons from your post. Luckly I'm informed.

*rolls eyes*

I hope that someday soon killer aliens will invade so we can actually stand together instead of bickering pointlessly and endlessly...

"LOOK OUT!"

...and you're trying to make people think highly of the british? If I didn't know any better, I'd think you're all arrogant, racist, morons from your post. Luckly I'm informed.

*rolls eyes*


Racist? uhh... ah, the vastly obese American race?

However, like news, all history is biased. I'm sure you being from england have a different account of the war of 1812 and the american revolution than I do.
What does the word bias mean in that respect?
There are countries - often dictatorships - who change the historic teachings to serve their needs.
But even if we stick to facts there is always the question how to interpret them. And there is not just one answer. There are different possible interpretations. And it is clear and even legitimate that every nation looks at the world from its own perspective and thinks first about one thing: itself. And that is the way we all lock at history and historic events. We all are biased in that respect.

Getting back on topic here:


1. The United States is broke. Bush came out with his 2005 fiscal budget a while back. He spent every single taxpayer cent that will be collected for 2004 even before he thought of paying down the debt... or even the interest on the debt. The debt is then bought by other countries (Japan is the #1 debt buyer for US Debt). This has been done ever since the US Government stopped running a 5% budget surplus every year from the mid 20's to late 50's. What happens when the other countires come knocking and demand their money back, and Bush cannot give out money because there is no more? One must remember that the US has the largest debt, and largest debt burden per citizen of any country.

Why do you think Precious metals and foreign currency (Such as Rands, Pounds, Euros, and Francs) have gained so much in the last 2 years when compared to the US Dollar? Hell, even my currency (Canadian Dollar) has gained also: up approx. 21 cents vs. US Dollar or a gain of 33.9% in roughly 2 years.

I give the US 5 years on this current track before the US economy implodes, and throws it into the largest recession since the crash of '29.

Bush cannot mobilize for full-scale invasion of Europe when he cannot do these two things: buy refined oil and pay for his military's daily upkeep.


Money is based on nothing but faith. Faith that the nation is good for the money. The United States has the largest, most aggressive, most vibrant economy the planet's ever seen. And we've proven that we're good for our debts. There will always be investors in the dollar.

Precious metals are on the rise because of their increased demand in the industrial sector. People don't trade gold coins back and forth any more, they plate PC boards with gold.

America doesn't buy refined oil, we buy sweet crude and refine it ourselves. Mostly, we buy from ourselves, South America, Africa and Norway, none of which are in the EU.


2. Fierce patriotism, on the part of European Citizens, will force out the United States in any invasion attempt.


Is this the same fierce nationalism that stopped Germany from invading France in 1870 and 1940, or the fierce nationalism that stipped the Americans, British and Russians from occupying Germany in 1945?


3. Homeland protests against war with the European Union may become revolt. Just think of all those immigrants from European nations, and the many that take thier ancestry seriously. I doubt that Bush can hold the nation together in this scenario... He only did get 51% of the popular vote...


"most" people in the USA don't give a rat's behind about what's going on in the rest of the world. The vaunted young idealist (impressionable, brainwashed) vote never materialized. Those few marginalists who would revolt against such a war would revolt over just about anything. The dumbasses protest against multinational corporations, and then break for lunch at McDonald's.

And there's no "only" about 54 million votes. Any way you slice it, Bush won the largest presidential victory since Regan, and got the most votes EVER.


4. Alpha-Orion... Many European nations still enforce the policy of conscription. You turn 18 and you do 2 years in the military. that way, everyone knows how to shoot a gun.


No one in Europe knows how to shoot. I've been there (2nd armored cavalry, Ansbach Germany, 1988-1990). The European populace is afraid of guns, and their governments don't trust them to use them anyway. Switzerland, a neutral nation, is an anomaly. Two years of training means they're amateurs. Our 18 year olds are raised with guns all their lives, and generally have two years of training before they're sent anywhere, to fill out the rest of their 4 years to life. The US military doesn't WANT conscripts, because they're not as good as professional troops (not BAD, just not as good)

Easy, build more. In a protracted war this is certainly possible...
.

It takes years to build a supercarrier. The EUs industrial complex would be rubble long before then. War is attrition, and the US has the ability to project force into Europe well before the EU could properly gear up. I am assuming a sufficient fleet of f22s though, without them it would be very messy over European skies.

Forget any sort of occupation though. Neither the EU nor the US can occupy each other(or any large country). Our militaries and economies are just not capable of sustaining that type of force.

ok so American, in theory has conquerored the whole of the EU. Have you hered of passive resistance?

The european's don't work, don't contribute to the American economy only making enough to survive. American finds it self with several trillion dollar/euro/pound/swedish krona dead wait round its neck. Europe already has an infustructure so america can't introduce it normal imperialist routine of setting up sweetshops everywhere. Europe would be an expensive hobby with no real reward. And seeing as America would have to borrow money to fund all this war (sour point debt boys) japan would make a field day. Eventually America would pull out or just hit resession and spiral out of being being a superpower faster then it already is doing.
Ten years later America is paying through the nose and europe begins to trade with other nations, in fact with itself! America pulls out,
Advance Britannia God Save the King!

Ironic really that europe's escape from opcupation comes from its former colonial past.......


Oh but Americans don't get irony do they oh well......

You're assuming that the Americans would subjugate Europe and stay. We only stay when you Euros can't take care of things yourself. Americans don't normally colonize other nations. We just blow up their toys, depose their kings, and rebuild them.

What is it with such stupid and purely flamebaiting threads?

Get that chip off your shoulder whoever you are; European or American!

America and Europe should be great allies not at each others throats. The poor relations between the two at the moment are not exclusively the fault of George W. Bush and the Americans.

Grow up!