NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

And you Americans can be glad Norway isn't in the EU! We've been killing seals since the dawn of time (or around that time, anyway.)

Anyway, if there was a war, Norwegian oil would rise dramatically in price and be sold to the highest bidder. That way, we'd get rich on the misery of the US and the EU! Oh, how we would gloat at the Finns, Danes and Swedes then!

*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?


Funny, I thought the Americans (and Confederates) taught the Euros the folly of charging the guns between 1861-1865, and that it was Euro hubris that decided to ignore things like trenches, indirect fire, and dispersal. You mean the Euros during WWI DIDN'T march into battle in 1915 the same way they did in 1815? Boy, I must really not know my military history...


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


Wrong. The Americans only suffered 53,402 combat deaths in WWI, as compared to the thousands a day the rest of the Euros bled away. The Americans have never suffered 20,000 casualties in a day, let alone in an hour like the Brits.


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.


Some of us have, as well as having read the accounts of the likes of Liddel Hart and Churchill, both of whom credit the Americans with winning both world wars. And most of the diaries don't actually talk about "foreign" troops: Americans and Brits rarely if ever served in the same trenches together. Usually, it's the accounts of the aristocratic British commanding officers that denigrate the Americans. Of course, they were still miffed that our ancestors kicked their ancestors out of their best colonies...

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!

Just to repeat myself to you cretins!

Deutschland Über Alles!

Ireland would be neutral. We're always neutral! just usally neutral on the US's side. This time we'd be neutral on the EU's side being part of it and all. In other words "we're neutral sorry USA but you cant use shannon(furthest west Irish airport, used to bring troops to Iraq and afganistan). EU oh your invading USA if you pay you can use shannon."

Actually, the American losses were 116,516 during WWI according to the American Battle Monuments Commission.

Hmm, what´s this talk about EU having trouble shooting down US stealth aircraft?

I would suggest that we just hire them Serb´s who shot down that F-117(If I remember it correctly) and you´re doomed! (US that is) ;)



(Not very serious but hey..)

Wrong. The Americans only suffered 53,402 combat deaths in WWI, as compared to the thousands a day the rest of the Euros bled away. The Americans have never suffered 20,000 casualties in a day, let alone in an hour like the Brits.

Then again the Yanks only got involved at the end. Where the Europeans had been lying in trenches for over 3 years.

Now lets be real about this. The US has more nuclear weapons then anybody on Earth. Especially more then what the EU has now or ever have. That would stop any nation from attacking the US in which the US could be destroyed. Bush is as nutz as Truman but not as smart or expierenced. On top of that the US has the best trained millitary in the world. Then on top that we have the best weapons and armour money could buy. Then even on top of that we have the most ships and planes then any other country in the world. So in the end the US would win without a doubt againest the EU. But I would never want the US and the EU go to war and I have a great deal of respect for the European Countries they just couldn't win a war againest the US. Now if it was the EU and China it the outcome might be different.

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...

Exactly right. I'm just posting data is all. :)

Then again the Yanks only got involved at the end. Where the Europeans had been lying in trenches for over 3 years.


Do you think it's a coincidence that after the US becomes involved, the end comes relatively quickly?

Sorry to be so snide about it, but it's not exactly as though the UK was three miles outside Berlin (or Paris, for that matter) when the US became involved, but only for a resume builder. Sheesh. :headbang:

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.
The US economy is much more ready to switch over to wartime production. And US forces are capable of quick strikes, and barring the use of Nukes, a beachhead could be forged in France within weeks of a US naval victory (12 supercarriers against the 3 or 4 of the EU nations). EU spy satellites would be brought down by American Pegasus missiles. B2 bombers would incapacitate the French nuclear arm with conventional bunker buster bombs, and any EU ships in port would also meet the same fate.

Once this strategic situation is accomplished American Marines would hit in a lightly defended area, possibly in the Bay of Biscay, set up a beachhead, deploy regular army forces, with the aid spec-ops, a french port could be seized. American footholds could be solidified. The US would get the Russians and the Saudis to cut oil production to the EU.

Once the port is secured, American heavy armor and land based air power could begin to dominate the western part of the continent, busting out into the center of France, and eventually following the same road into Germany that the western allies took during WWII

To contain any British forces American Carrier battle groups would be deployed to the area of the English Channel. Containing the brits on their island, and denying them exterior supplies, and doing what Germany tried and failed during two world wars. Once Britain was surrounded, we could expect a new government to come into play there, which would be decidedly in favor of the US.

The keys to victory would include:
-The American Preparation for war anywhere.
-American naval superiority.
-American air superiority.
-American stealth capability.
-The fact that the American industrial machine is much more adaptable to wartime conditions than the European industry is also important.

Funny, I thought the Americans (and Confederates) taught the Euros the folly of charging the guns between 1861-1865, and that it was Euro hubris that decided to ignore things like trenches, indirect fire, and dispersal. You mean the Euros during WWI DIDN'T march into battle in 1915 the same way they did in 1815? Boy, I must really not know my military history...


Well, the Europeans were in the War since 1914, the American's didn't get there until 1917, after the French had bled the Germans white and Vice Versa, AFTER they realized the folly of charging entrenched positions, but the Americans didn't listen to them. It was actually the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 which left the largest impact on European AND American strategy. And no, they didn't march into battle the way they did in 1815. They marched into battle the same way as they did in 1870, which is much different. I'd suggest subscribing to Military Heritage magazine. Being American, it concentrates a lot on your Civil War (Which being American, from your worldview appears much more significant to you than it does to those outside your borders), and will give you a much better strategic and historical grasp on knowledge.


Wrong. The Americans only suffered 53,402 combat deaths in WWI, as compared to the thousands a day the rest of the Euros bled away. The Americans have never suffered 20,000 casualties in a day, let alone in an hour like the Brits.

The Americans had much less of an impact in WWI than your American textbooks would have you believe. Americans suffered 320,518 casualties, 116,516 of those being deaths. Slightly less than that of Serbia, and about half that of Romania, who had much more of an impact. The Europeans only suffered 20, 000 casualties a day during a few largescale battles involving millions of troops, before the Americans joined. By the time that they finally did, the Germans and Austrians had essentially already been beaten. Judging from many war journals and secondhand sources, the Americans tried their hardest to suffer the highest casualties possible by ignoring advice from Allies who had been involved since 1914.

Some of us have, as well as having read the accounts of the likes of Liddel Hart and Churchill, both of whom credit the Americans with winning both world wars. And most of the diaries don't actually talk about "foreign" troops: Americans and Brits rarely if ever served in the same trenches together. Usually, it's the accounts of the aristocratic British commanding officers that denigrate the Americans. Of course, they were still miffed that our ancestors kicked their ancestors out of their best colonies...

I don't believe that anyone is debating that the Americans and Russians essentially won the Second World War, with large help from Britain, the commonwealth countries, and the Free French. Churchill was a grand orator, and war leader, but his books were written by a ghost author, oftentimes with very little imput of his own, and much from his colleagues. And as for Liddell Hart, his memoirs are a very benificial reading, but coloured by the fact that he was an officer durin WWI. He was a brilliant military historian, and you should read his sections on the Americans in his book "The Real War 1914-1918" I would suggest reading "And on We Go" as well as "Ghosts have Warm Hands" by Will R. Bird. A canadian serving in the trenches in World War one, he served many times with the Americans, and his depictions of them are none too flattering for the most part. It is in the common soldier that give the most accurate view of the war. Believe me, the Aristocratic British Officers appear to praise the Americans compared to the descriptions that the common French, British, or Canadian soldiers give of the Americans. If you can read French, you'll see that the French spare no expense in their descriptions of American Arrogance and Foolishness!

Though I must Qualify that Most Americans served Nobly in both World Wars, as did the British, French, Canadians, Russians, Germans, Austrians, and many Colonial powers. Remembrance day is coming up, let's no forget.

And actually, as another historical note, the British were quite pleased in the Aftermath of the American revolution. Their Caribean Colonies were much more profitable, American administration was too expensive, and they still got to trade with the Americans afterwards without the cost. It was win win for both sides :fluffle:

Actually, the American losses were 116,516 durin WWI according to the American Battle Monuments Commission.

That's including all deaths, including accidents and (especially) disease. I only mentioned combat deaths, which are far fewer.

You over estimate the British's love for Americans, bomb us surround us etc. you will only galvanise the population against you. Hitler thought he could break morale with the embargo and bombing and neither worked, the UK I would guess would weather a blockade better this time. American forces would have to land and fight their way up the whole country and they would lose thousands and thousands of troops doing so, consider the terrain in parts of Wales and the whole of northern Scotland. Would make the Iraqi innsurgency look like a tea party. No nation will stand by and be conquered, especially when theres no premise of 'liberation'.

The Americans had much less of an impact in WWI than your American textbooks would have you believe. Americans suffered 320,518 casualties, 116,516 of those being deaths. Slightly less than that of Serbia, and about half that of Romania, who had much more of an impact.


Um, Romania? You're saying ROMANIA had more of an effect on WWI than the US? Just because they lost a lot of people during WWI doesn't mean they actually had any real effect on the course of the war. Killing your enemy has an effect on the course of the war, not dying yourself. The entrance of American troops and industrial capacity into WWI finally convinced the German command structure that the war was unwinnable, something that the rest of the Allied powers in WWI had been trying in vain to do for four years.


The Europeans only suffered 20, 000 casualties a day before the Americans joined, by the time that they finally did, the Germans and Austrians had essentially already been beaten.

the Germans were FAR from beaten when the Americans started coming into France in divisional strength. Their spring offensive in 1917 should prove that. The Germans almost WON the war, if it hadn't been for what Americans there were in France being thrown into the French and British lines to bolster the defence. Although it was their last gasp, the Germans did end the war in France, not in Germany.


Judging from many war journals and secondhand sources, the Americans tried their hardest to suffer the highest casualties possible by ignoring advice from Allies who had been involved since 1914.


Just as every other army had to go through a learning curve in WWI, so did the American military. True, we did a few headlong dashes into the lines of Maxims, but that was largely because we had no respect for the British and (especially) French military, considering they had fought a stalemated war for three years before we got there. The learning curve was fastest for the US Army, however, and we adopted new tactics faster than any other military in Europe. And I'll say it again: the Euros could have learned from us 50 years earlier, but thought WE were inept. It took them three years to learn better, while it took the US a few months.


And as for Liddell Hart, his memoirs are a very benificial reading, but coloured by the fact that he was an officer durin WWI.


Wasn't Liddel Hart a Kitchiner volunteer? If so, his outlook on the war would be more similar to the grunts in the trenches, rather than the general staff.


He was a brilliant military historian, and you should read his sections on the Americans in his book "The Real War 1912-1918"


It's been a few years since I've read it. It's in my WWI shelf at home; I'll dig it out when I get home tonight.



Though I must Qualify that Most Americans served Nobly in both World Wars, as did the British, French, Canadians, Russians, Germans, Austrians, and many Colonial powers. Remembrance day is coming up, let's no forget.


I wholeheartedly agree. There are lots of us on this side of the pond that don't consider Vetran's Day just another day off work.



And actually, as another historical note, the British were quite pleased in the Aftermath of the American revolution. Their Caribean Colonies were much more profitable, American administration was too expensive, and they still got to trade with the Americans afterwards without the cost. It was win win for both sides


In historical hindsight, colonies NEVER make money. The British merchant class (as well as the Yankees) were generally against the Revolution because it screwed up trade. Once the Treaty of Paris was signed, they quickly got back into bed with each other. Of course, compared with India, Africa and Australia, the Brits stood to loose much more money by losing the Americas.

Barring a new "Hitleresque" fellow coming into power in the EU or a direct assault by one of it's members, this would likely never happen, and it wouldn't stay in progress very long either.

The US citizens are far too isolationist and worried about their image abroad to be caught up in a fullscale assault on the EU. There'd be a flat out revolt, and if there is one force more powerful than the US military forces...it's the US' citizens.

Now considering the US and EU are thrown into an "inevitable" conflict by whatever means, there'd be several considerations to take into account.

1. The date.

The US will have a plethora of new technology to work with, replacing much of the older equipment all too soon, this is beyond any "covert" items the military may be hiding (they show us something new in every war). New tech comes with new bugs, but in general it is slated to be in all ways better than anything else out there. By the way, have you seen the recent news on our battlemech project? :p

2. Has Europe changed its tune?

Does it now understand that leaving mad powerhungry people alone long enough will cause problems? I'd like to say yes but every time I think of another European war I feel as though certain members will lapse back into a circle of appeasement. Unless ya'll can work together and fiercely within moments of an attack, bad things will happen.

3. Current troop deployment.

The war can not possibly occur right now simply because the US is too invested in the middle east to project a reasonable amount of force on the EU and trained European peacekeeping forces are stretched all over the map.

Sure, the US could raid a few towns, but that would only serve to anger the rest of europe and set the appeasement clock ticking. Once that time is up, they'll get their act together and fight back with what I'd expect to be a surprisingly large and fairly well equipped (if not rushed) force.

4. Logistics and the feasability of an invasion of the US.

I'd like to say it would not happen, completely impossible....but that is complete BS. In any scenario in which the entirety of europe is fighting against the US (quite a feat in itself) our position of relative safety could be quickly undermined by two nations, Mexico and Canada.

If they should cooperate with the EU, mainland would have quite a fight on their hands, one that could easily force a stalemate, or have the distinct possibility of an EU win.

In the end I think the most likely result for such a conflict would be both sides losing, and losing dearly.

You over estimate the British's love for Americans, bomb us surround us etc. you will only galvanise the population against you. Hitler thought he could break morale with the embargo and bombing and neither worked, the UK I would guess would weather a blockade better this time. American forces would have to land and fight their way up the whole country and they would lose thousands and thousands of troops doing so, consider the terrain in parts of Wales and the whole of northern Scotland. Would make the Iraqi innsurgency look like a tea party. No nation will stand by and be conquered, especially when theres no premise of 'liberation'.

You are assuming a ww2 style land invasion … that is a lot of supposition I would not be willing to make

1 that the us is attacking europe

2 land invasion

3 preparedness on one side or the other.


Either side in bad shape but remember deploy ability and the powerful thing a carrier task force is … we can deploy force almost anywhere in overwhelming quantities.


But if the EU was determined on attacking the us they are not configured for that … defense to an extent but as long as the us did not attack and pulled some carrier task groups back for border protection it is over

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.


The Brits wouldn't join the EU because they'd lose their power and their figurehead The Queen. I doubt British citizens would be to happy to come under a generic group of nations like the EU were everything is concentrated under one leader.. nor do i think they would like to lose command of their own military .

Zaad is also right, alot of Americans are Isolationists. They wouldn't like a Massive scale war on a Power like the EU thats a combined strength of many nations.

Now lets be real about this. The US has more nuclear weapons then anybody on Earth. Especially more then what the EU has now or ever have. That would stop any nation from attacking the US in which the US could be destroyed. Bush is as nutz as Truman but not as smart or expierenced. On top of that the US has the best trained millitary in the world. Then on top that we have the best weapons and armour money could buy. Then even on top of that we have the most ships and planes then any other country in the world. So in the end the US would win without a doubt againest the EU. But I would never want the US and the EU go to war and I have a great deal of respect for the European Countries they just couldn't win a war againest the US. Now if it was the EU and China it the outcome might be different.


Lol there is such a thing as an overkill
It dosent matter if they have 3000 more nukes or whatever


Lets say it takes 10 nukes to kill everything in the eu

And 15 in the us

What is the point of the us having 1000 and the eu only 100

It is still a total kill on both sides

Those extra however many don’t MATTER because dropping a few extra don’t matter EVERYTHING is dead

Think of it like pass fail grading … both have enough points to pass … and more then that is just showing off (to a point … if the zone turned global that is a different story)

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!

I love it when Euros try to say that Americans are dumb because they may not know X. :)

(BTW: your answers, without looking them up are:
Asia, Nairobi, an ancient Greek poet, no clue, it depends: Nile is longest, Amazon is widest..., and Carthage (go, Scipio!!)

Because, (you spanny!) it was about saving an American private, in an American zone. Same reason why you never see the Italian mercenaries in Henry V (at Agincourt). They were there -- but not important to the story.

So, right back at you:
(I posit that most Euros don't know these without looking them up.)

Of the cardinal directions, which one does not lend itself to a state's name?

Where is NorthWestern University?

Name the Presidents on Mount Rushmore.

Which is the Constitution State?

How did Robert E Lee die?

Name the three Apollo 11 astronauts.

What city was President Lincoln given as a Christmas present?

Britian's Navy's is not far behind US's overall, and with Germmans and france fleet the USA's would be crushed. Keeping in mind that it would be partly divived because of the Pacific fleet, as well many American ships are at Britian's Over seas port and if any were there when war broke out they would be seised by the british garsions. So the EU would gain control of the seas and then a Battle of Britian type battle would start, but with America's 2000+jet fighters (can't comfirm number) the EU would likely loss on that front. Which would be followed by cruise missle bombardment of the US main land until sunbmission or land Invasion. But with the large and loyal US population a long term holding would be impossble so the EU would proply just setup on parliament and get out asap.

Britian's Navy's is not far behind US's overall, and with Germmans and france fleet the USA's would be crushed. Keeping in mind that it would be partly divived because of the Pacific fleet, as well many American ships are at Britian's Over seas port and if any were there when war broke out they would be seised by the british garsions. So the EU would gain control of the seas and then a Battle of Britian type battle would start, but with America's 2000+jet fighters (can't comfirm number) the EU would likely loss on that front. Which would be followed by cruise missle bombardment of the US main land until sunbmission or land Invasion. But with the large and loyal US population a long term holding would be impossble so the EU would proply just setup on parliament and get out asap.


Lol seze ... now for one in a relistic scenario with 5 k people abord one aircraft carier ... them having the advantage of firepower including anti bording wepons

Also the fact that each country probably would be so tense with the other as to not anchor at the enimies harbor.

And aircraft carrier entire groups are NOT kept at one port

Now as for britians navy it is top notch in quality but it does not even approach the quantity of the us (and quality is pretty even matched) Im sorry but as powerfull as the us is in other land based ariea the navy so far out numbers and classes most opponents.

And US forces are capable of quick strikes, and barring the use of Nukes, a beachhead could be forged in France within weeks of a US naval victory (12 supercarriers against the 3 or 4 of the EU nations). EU spy satellites would be brought down by American Pegasus missiles. B2 bombers would incapacitate the French nuclear arm with conventional bunker buster bombs, and any EU ships in port would also meet the same fate.

Once this strategic situation is accomplished American Marines would hit in a lightly defended area, possibly in the Bay of Biscay, set up a beachhead, deploy regular army forces, with the aid spec-ops, a french port could be seized. American footholds could be solidified. The US would get the Russians and the Saudis to cut oil production to the EU.

Once the port is secured, American heavy armor and land based air power could begin to dominate the western part of the continent, busting out into the center of France, and eventually following the same road into Germany that the western allies took during WWII



I don't think that the 12 american supercarriers would have a chance of acheveing air superiorty considering that the EU could use landbased aircraft. A very quick tour of google shows that the EU would have about 1200 good fighters in the air (then counting all of the 620 orded eurofighters, rafael, griffins and denmarks and finlands f16/f18s). If anyone has the time there are still alot of fighters i haven't counted, like the current airforces of Germany, Britain, Spain and italy. I don't think that 12 carriers have the ability to knock out all those planes.

The EU also has a clear advantage in brown-water submarines, which I think would make american forces think twice before goinq in to shallow waters and acrhipelagos.

Britian's Navy's is not far behind US's overall, and with Germmans and france fleet the USA's would be crushed. Keeping in mind that it would be partly divived because of the Pacific fleet, as well many American ships are at Britian's Over seas port and if any were there when war broke out they would be seised by the british garsions. So the EU would gain control of the seas and then a Battle of Britian type battle would start, but with America's 2000+jet fighters (can't comfirm number) the EU would likely loss on that front. Which would be followed by cruise missle bombardment of the US main land until sunbmission or land Invasion. But with the large and loyal US population a long term holding would be impossble so the EU would proply just setup on parliament and get out asap.
Its unlikely that if a war is brewing between the two we would just leave our ships in British overseas ports. But your incorrect in your assertion that the Royal Navy is "not far behind the US's overall". The UK has a total of 3 aircraft carriers, the Invincible, Illustrious, and Ark Royal (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html). The United States has 13 (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html).

An Invincible Class Aircraft Carrier displaces 22,000 tonnes, while a Nimitz Class AC displaces 87,996.9 metric tons, to put things in proportion.

The Brits wouldn't join the EU because they'd lose their power and their figurehead The Queen. I doubt British citizens would be to happy to come under a generic group of nations like the EU were everything is concentrated under one leader.. nor do i think they would like to lose command of their own military .

Zaad is also right, alot of Americans are Isolationists. They wouldn't like a Massive scale war on a Power like the EU thats a combined strength of many nations.

Emm well the UK is a part of the EU and has been for decades

I don't think that the 12 american supercarriers would have a chance of acheveing air superiorty considering that the EU could use landbased aircraft. A very quick tour of google shows that the EU would have about 1200 good fighters in the air (then counting all of the 620 orded eurofighters, rafael, griffins and denmarks and finlands f16/f18s). If anyone has the time there are still alot of fighters i haven't counted, like the current airforces of Germany, Britain, Spain and italy. I don't think that 12 carriers have the ability to knock out all those planes.

The EU also has a clear advantage in brown-water submarines, which I think would make american forces think twice before goinq in to shallow waters and acrhipelagos.
Again assuming a us attack

And 1200 … less then stationed on 12 aircraft carriers

Considering the carriers come with anti air support groups (remember no aircraft carier is alone) usually a minimum of 18 vessels in a up to 100 mile protective ring … with a capability of taking out almost any air threat up to a range of 500 miles with just on board ordinance.

Now again assuming a us invasion

Its unlikely that if a war is brewing between the two we would just leave our ships in British overseas ports. But your incorrect in your assertion that the Royal Navy is "not far behind the US's overall". The UK has a total of 3 aircraft carriers, the Invincible, Illustrious, and Ark Royal (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html). The United States has 13 (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html).

An Invincible Class Aircraft Carrier displaces 22,000 tonnes, while a Nimitz Class AC displaces 87,996.9 metric tons, to put things in proportion.


Yup designed as a faster strike vessel … but lack the heavy hitting power



Yup designed as a faster strike vessel … but lack the heavy hitting power

Though I am always amazed that the carrier is the fastest conventional hulled ship normally fielded .

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!
you don't seem to know that in North America (i'm a canuck bye the way) we don't learn much about Eruope, Asia, Afica, or even South America. for example you can probly name every nation in th EU and it's capital. But how many nations and caps. can you name from Latin America? Probly not so many. So not many Americans will be able to answer your quiz. But then again I have meet Americans who don't know when Canada is. and others think (even some form the Northern States) think well all live in Igloos.

In which continent is Borneo?
Don't know
What is the Capital of Kenya?
don't know
Apart from being a thunderbird who was Virgil?
not a clue
What language do they speak in Nigeria?
3 different offical Languages, 250 in all. (I did a unit on this country in grade school and we never covered the fact that it used to be a British holding)
Name the world's three largest rivers,
Amazon, Nile, don't know
Which city was destroyed during the Punic wars?
when where the Puntic wars. when I think Punic I think Alexander the Great. but I'm probly confusing it with Pontus, which was a nation that rose from Alexanders Empire.

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?

cuz Hollywood made it, and Americans think that the war was largely them vs the Axis.( that's just what I have seen in from talking to Americans.) and us Canucks did most are fighting in the northern nations and Itatly, not France.

Again assuming a us attack

And 1200 … less then stationed on 12 aircraft carriers

Considering the carriers come with anti air support groups (remember no aircraft carier is alone) usually a minimum of 18 vessels in a up to 100 mile protective ring … with a capability of taking out almost any air threat up to a range of 500 miles with just on board ordinance.

Now again assuming a us invasion

I thought that US carriers took about 80-85 aircraft each. 80*12=960. And I only counted fourth generation aircraft (except the 150 f16/f18). I don't belive that 950-1000 third generation fighters (som being 5th in the future) could take out the same amount of fourth gen. And when needed my guess is that the EU could get about 2500 third gen. from reserves.

Its unlikely that if a war is brewing between the two we would just leave our ships in British overseas ports. But your incorrect in your assertion that the Royal Navy is "not far behind the US's overall". The UK has a total of 3 aircraft carriers, the Invincible, Illustrious, and Ark Royal (http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/148.html). The United States has 13 (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-cv.html).

An Invincible Class Aircraft Carrier displaces 22,000 tonnes, while a Nimitz Class AC displaces 87,996.9 metric tons, to put things in proportion.
but what about britians frigates, they have AA missle systems. Air isn't as powerful as it once was due to newer the AA systems.so it would be ship to ship combat.

I love it when Euros try to say that Americans are dumb because they may not know X. :)
Of the cardinal directions, which one does not lend itself to a state's name?

Where is NorthWestern University?

Name the Presidents on Mount Rushmore.

Which is the Constitution State?

How did Robert E Lee die?

Name the three Apollo 11 astronauts.

What city was President Lincoln given as a Christmas present?

Do you really think it's fare to ask questions about America, when the questions you answered where of a more general character?

I thought that US carriers took about 80-85 aircraft each. 80*12=960. And I only counted fourth generation aircraft (except the 150 f16/f18). I don't belive that 950-1000 third generation fighters (som being 5th in the future) could take out the same amount of fourth gen. And when needed my guess is that the EU could get about 2500 third gen. from reserves.


85 above deck on a nimitz class

and 13 fielded

puts it at 1105 so close

once it swaps over to thrust vectoring the decreased takeoff length adds an expected 10 more

so yeah close

assuming no land based craft available to the us

Ummm. In theory Canada would fight on the side of the EU. Frankly, I can't see a -large- amount of canadians supporting Bush.

So following that, we'd be conquered quite quickly, then of course the USA would have a Canadian Ulcer where their men are drained, spread out, and picked off as we fight a combination of Russian and Iraqi style wars. :mp5: And you simply couldn't beat that.

but what about britians frigates, they have AA missle systems. Air isn't as powerful as it once was due to newer the AA systems.so it would be ship to ship combat.


Don’t forget the us carriers are NOT by themselves

They are surrounded by 3-8 aa boats of their own

You are comparing the complete uk navy against just the CARIERS
When they never go ANYWHERE alone

They are always a part of a carrier battle group

The center of a large group of protective and support ships

Ummm. In theory Canada would fight on the side of the EU. Frankly, I can't see a -large- amount of canadians supporting Bush.

So following that, we'd be conquered quite quickly, then of course the USA would have a Canadian Ulcer where their men are drained, spread out, and picked off as we fight a combination of Russian and Iraqi style wars. :mp5: And you simply couldn't beat that.

Lol you could say that the uk would be on the US's side (for this purpose we are assuming only the EU against america ... no other country involvement)

Well the pinnacle of each sides airforce are the F-22 (US) and the Eurofighter Typhoon (Europe) both sides have acess to the new F-35 JSF as it was codeveloped by Lockheed and Bae Systems. The F-22 is superior but costs much much more so its likely thered be less, the Typhoon is capable of taking down pretty much anything else with ease. Id imagine due to the familiarity that certainly UK forces have of the US stealth aircraft (F-117s were based in the UK during the Gulf and Kosovo conflicts) they probably know how to look for them.

Lol you could say that the uk would be on the US's side (for this purpose we are assuming only the EU against america ... no other country involvement)

But Britain is in the EU! Damn how many time does it have to be said! lol

but what about britians frigates, they have AA missle systems. Air isn't as powerful as it once was due to newer the AA systems.so it would be ship to ship combat.
Its unlikely that any amount of AA missile systems would be able to take out a carrier's worth of aircraft unless concentrated in high amounts in a small area, at which they'd be prey to America's larger conventional navy. Britain has 16 Type 23 frigates and four Type 22, 11 Type 42 destroyers. The US has 54 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, 5 Spruance class destroyers, 30 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates, and 26 Ticonderoga class cruisers.

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?
well i think the comment wealth would be on britains side as is formally used to be part of great britian so i think the eu would totally kick the usa ass lol

Do you really think it's fare to ask questions about America, when the questions you answered where of a more general character?

Yes. Euros tend to know lots about Europe and disdain Americans for not knowing the same. I got my Slovak cousin once when he complained I didn't know where Brno was. He had no clue what state Bismarck was in, either. :)

If I made the questions more general, would that be more to your liking? Okay...

Which mountain in West Virginia has been on fire for the last 200 years?

My point is that knowledge is knowledge. To call someone ignorant for not knowing what you know is haughty.

USA, of course. The homeland of the U.S.A would be little touched or not touched at all from hostile bombers. They'd never get past the CVBG's, and those of you with any knowledge of naval combat know that the modern day CVBG is almost unstopable. If you don't believe me, pick up any book on modern naval combat and read it. If that doesn't work, go ask an admiral, captain, or any senior officer in your nation's navy to attack an American CVBG, and they'll tell you (while probably laughing at you) exactly what I have--and the book you were supposed to have read.

Now, if the EU had landed bombers in Canada before the war, then launched them from Canada, then the homeland would take some damage.

I strongly doubt the U.S. has enough ground forces to conquer all of the EU without massive casualties. Sadly, America frets when a few of their soldiers die (and who wouldn't?). If America does, the EU really needs to beg America to teach them how to fight. Thus, America would probably take the U.K. and use it as a big landing field and bomb the EU into surrender.

OMFG everyone should read The United States of Europe: The New Superpower or die. It offers a lot of credible evidence that Europe is indeed the more powerful.

But Britain is in the EU! Damn how many time does it have to be said! lol

But did you READ the post I was quoting … they said canida would side with the EU … we were limiting it to eu vs us … and if it is a liklyhood match the UK would join US


Ok let me explain this simpler

UK is in the EU yes
But Canada is not

He said Canada would side with them
I said if we weren’t limiting ourselves to the rules of EU vs.US then UK would join us (I was stepping outside the bounds of EU vs. US sorry I should have explained it but I thought it was evident)

Its been widely suggested that the the EU will swell to include the former soviet countries, Turkey and Russia. Its also been suggested countries like Morocco could apply to join in the future. Its not inconcievable that the EU could grow into the largest 'nation' the world has ever seen.
An interesting suggestion is that India and China could switch their national reserves from dollars to euros because of US debt, this could cripple the US at a stroke.

But did you READ the post I was quoting … they said canida would side with the EU … we were limiting it to eu vs us … and if it is a liklyhood match the UK would join US


Ok let me explain this simpler

UK is in the EU yes
But Canada is not

He said Canada would side with them
I said if we weren’t limiting ourselves to the rules of EU vs.US then UK would join us (I was stepping outside the bounds of EU vs. US sorry I should have explained it but I thought it was evident)

To be honest given the choice the UK would side with the US, i expect Blair to begin distancing himself from the States soon as it aint doing his re election chances any good.

Piss off, I'm british and I'd fight with the french and germans over the americans any day.. There's been some stupid ingrained animosity between the larger western european nations for some time, but nothing that would stop them from uniting against the most hated and feared nation in the world. Given the huge universal anger at recent (last 50 years) US foriegn policy I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, maybe with some moron like Thatcher at the helm we might have sided with Reagan, but I think even Blair knows his population better than that. Vive le EU!

altogether the argument is flawed even if this situation were even hypothetically possible, what is the point of pitting them against one another.

The first thing is that just cos there abbrieviated doesnt mean theyre the same. The EU is made up of different countrys with different forms of government, Further divided sub catagories of governance.

The USA for all intensive purposes is one country.

You have a military might with a single purpose on one hand, the US
and the EU on the the other side who's members may not even decide to join in.

And even if they did, Europe, since the end of the cold war has been downsizing there entire military muscle.

So on a statistical level the states wins with out a doubt.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/europe/2002-0106-Chicago%20Tribune-European%20superpower.html

Very interesting

What gets me, is that all the Americans say, Stealth Bomber this, Naval/Air Superiority that.

Look at the newer websites and information. The EU is becoming the most technologically advanced army in the world.

The British and German tanks (Mainly Challanger-2 and the new Leopard) are much better than the Americans MBT,

http://www.army.mod.uk/rac/main_battle_tanks/

This is the MOD site, so it doesn't lie, and is a reliable source for them americans who will sya otherwise lol.

With the British churning these out during a full-scale war, i think that along with the amount of people the EU would have, the americans would be slaughtered. They think Iraqi Rebels kill??? You wait till you meet the best armies in the world!

And besides, I am British, and i do not see myself as a member of the EU, or as being in Europe, I am a Briton, not a European.

If this was to happen, it would be USA, Britain vs EU

This way, America would have a giant base in order to stash all their vehicles, and be right next to the EU continent. I believe that an invasion this way would be a lot more successful.

America may be a 'superpower' ( I don't see them as this, I see America who sort of became rich off the suffering of people in WW2) but cannot sustain a war of that scale so far away from home. They may have Stealth Bombers, but then again so do the british i may add.

The British Navy may only be a shadow of it's former self, being the superpower of victorian times, but still has a hugely powerful navy obviously the most powerful in the EU states. (France suck, we all know that! lol)

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html (Good site, worth looking at) That ship is going to be hugely powerful.

Even if America did invade the UK, you could be sure that Australia, New Zealand, and most of the Commonwealth would be there to help their 'mother' country. ( hehehe )

Anyway, i dont hate America, i can become mad with them sometimes on what some of their citizens say, as it is ignorance mainly. I have many an american friend, i'd say 20+ and i think they are really cool, and we have had many a conversation about invading france! (haven't we all?!) heh

I hope this would happen, just so the UK and the USA could wipe France and Brussels off the face of the planet!

Kirov Lionheart......

P.S America do not have most Nukes....... Russia do! Surprise surprise!

America have the best Nukes along the the UK, Russia have about 30,000+ nukes which were built during the Cold War, so about a 1/4 of them are not useable, and only reach about 3,000 miles. the UK's and the USA's reach 8000+ miles, so you can see who has the advantage.

EU vs USA.....LMAO!!!I doubt that would happen and even if it did both countries(if the EU united as one) would suffer massively economically.Also China would have it's chance to attack, along with North Korea, and several others.)

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?
Asia would NOT be neutral.Surely one of those countries would give aid.If China joined then they would go on the U.S.'s side cuz the U.S. trades with China a lot.Bush isn't that evil btw.I know in Europe you hate conservatives and think they're the devils children which I found insane.F.Y.I. I did vote for Kerry, but I don't hate Bush that bad.How can you hate a man so much???

neither side would use nukes......LMAO LOL ROFL!

The initial scenario postulated was an attack by the United States on the European Union. Using that yardstick, the victor would be the EU. The reason for this is limitations of power projection. The US can only exert a limited amount of its combat capacity to Europe, while Europe’s combat capacity is 100% in its own back yard. The United States strength is such that, as things stand today they could launch an attack and hurt Europe before being defeated. Conversely, in conventional warfare the EU would pose little threat to the United States. Why? Lets break down capabilities.

Area US EU Advantage

Population 300 mil 450 mil EU

GDP 11 tril 10-12 tril Even I think the EU’s is slightly larger, but its more fragmented.

Defense $ 450 bil 300 bil US Even more of an advantage due to consolidated US military

Bombers 170 0 US Useful for launching cruise missiles not much else

Combat A/C 3500 2500 US About 1800 of EU’s aircraft equal in quality to USAF

Carriers 12/12 1/5 US First number a full carrier second baby carriers

Surface 110 150 US Numbers are for ships over 1500 tons and are an estimate. US ships tend to be larger and more capable

Subs 72 26/60 Even First number nucs, seconds number conventionally powered

Tanks 7000 5000 Even Those are guesses for the number of modern tanks

Troops 1.2 mil 3 mil EU An estimate on ground troops after mobilization of reserves.

Arty ? ? EU Don’t know numbers but EU has more advanced SP arty

Tech ? ? Even Each has areas of expertise, US has a very slight edge over all

So basically the US is superior to the EU in the air and on the water, while the EU has the advantage on the ground and on their home turf. This analysis is based on the parameters set; UK in the EU, Only the EU and US involved, only conventional weapons used (I consider that Chem. and Bio to be equivalent to nukes in that both sides have access and can destroy each other, no advantage to be gained.)

Europeans, get over the fact that Bush won.I didn't care who won as long as Bush lost, but he didn't; and it's over.GET OVER THE ELECTION.U don't even live in the U.S.!

now IF this were to happen for some unexplainable reason then the EU would defintely win becuz I would protest Bush's war and so would many others most likely.Also we'd probably refuse to go into the draft under any circumstance becuz we r like tht:).

Dont know where you get Britain having stealth bombers, cause we dont. The US are the only country building stealth aircraft and they dont sell them.
Like it or not Britain is European, personally im sick of the goverment running it like an American puppet, but hey thats another topic and for the purpose of this Britain must fight with the EU.
China would side with the EU as would Russia, for numerous reasons for example they are involved in the 'Galelio' project and various other areas of co operation.
If theres one country not to mess with its China, they could easily raize an army of 150 million troops, they could beat anyone with sheer weight of numbers!

Lets try and get our facts straight please?

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

Just to be clear the Su-29 is a prop plane used for Areobatics NOT a bomber. Think you were refering to either the Mig-29 which is a decent aircraft which EU member countries have maybe 100 of, or the Su-27 family(Su-27,30,33,35) which is comparable to the F-15, but which no one in the EU has.

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. ;)

What European Anti-missile missle? Afew SAMs might have some capacity against cruise missles, but not most. As for the EU's cruise missiles..the only long range system are the 100 or so Tomohawks that the UK bought from the US. The ASMP and Storm Shadow/SCALP are nice systems but short ranged only about 200 miles. The Polaris was a Sub Launched Ballistic Missile carrying nuclear warheads, not a cruise missile. It is no longer in service having been replaced with the Trident D5 missile on the UK Vangard class subs.

Is this annoying anyone yet?


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

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 F-18 was designed as both a fighter and attack aircraft, to replace the A-7 in naval service. This was done to increase the efficeny of a carriers rather small airwing. The Navy already had the F-14 for the AtoA roll in which it was superior to the F-18.

The F-15 and F-16 are flown ONLY by the Air force. The F-16 has gotten a lot of foriegn sales, the F-15 not as many, but neither aircraft is designed for naval operations, and the army is not allowed to fly fixed wing combat aircraft.

The F-22 is designed to replace the F-15C, an interceptor, rather than the F-15E which is more of an attack plane. Its advatages include greater power and manueverability, stealth, supercruise, and a superior radar.

[QUOTE=The True Right]Hey genius, what kind of sub is that. Is it nuclear powered? BTW our subs can stay underwater a bit longer then 3 weeks.
QUOTE]


[QUOTE=Von Witzleben]Hydrogen. Not dependent on the outside air.
What kind of subs? QUOTE]

Not exactly a correction, more of an explaination. The subs that Von Witzeben is talking about are called Air Independant Propulsion or AIP. These new designs increase the subs need to do without surfacing for air/recharging from 4 days to three weeks. It can only last 3 weeks if minimum power is used (speed 4 knots). If it goes faster the less time it has. While on these batteries there is almost no machine noise, they are incredibly quiet.

All US subs are nuclear powered and have no need to surface for anything except to get more food or if there is an emergency. Air and drinking water is optained from them ocean, so it has much greater endurance than the AIP. Its disadvantage is that there is always machinery running to control the reactor, meaning sound that has to be muffled somehow.

The British and German tanks (Mainly Challanger-2 and the new Leopard) are much better than the Americans MBT,


Altough I am absolutely not sure about the latest Challenger being better the the latest Abrahams, the latest Leopard2 version surely is, this might help for the pro EU side:
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm
(done by Americans BTW)



and a nice pick:http://www.army-technology.com/projects/leopard/leopard1.html

In the tradition of the great Panther (Pzkw V) and Tiger II (Pzkw VI), the best tank in the world is named after a cat.

If i was to ask a person from New York were they American they would say yes.If I was to ask the same question in every other state it would be the same.If I was to ask a British person were they European I would most likely be told to F@*k off and perhaps midly threatened with violence for the insult.

The general feeling in Britian is that the EU is something to do with trade and thats the way it should be.The idea of greater political unity through a constitution has been fiercely rejected and up to 20% of the population have a desire to leave the EU totaly.During the recent European elections significant gains were made by the UK Independence Party and the majority of mep's elected were either status quo politicians or to the further right.
In ther unlikely event that the EU and USA would go to war Britain would probably stay neutral or if anything join the United States.Culturaly Britain and the U.S.A are similar and the British and US economies are closely linked.

For the EU to stand a chance it would need both Britain and France as the two leading military powers to work together if the British failed to support europe it would be doomed.

This thread poses a similar hypothetical situation.

What would happen if the British Commonwealth were to form into a powerfull economical and military block.
Britain
Austrailia
Canada
India
South Africa
and the rest of the empire.

That would be scary

Oh and Britain dont have stealth bombers, if you had a psycho physics teacher you would know that Britain uses ultrasound as opposed to radar.This renders stealth useless against the British aa stuff rapier 2000 or summat.Also most european countries cant afford single purpose aircraft so the use of multi purpose vehicles like the tornado and harrier are popular so u wont find much jaw dropping tech unless you count the french who have a tendency to try and project the image of a super power so they use huge aircraft carriers and speedy mirages.

you don't seem to know that in North America (i'm a canuck bye the way) we don't learn much about Eruope, Asia, Afica, or even South America. for example you can probly name every nation in th EU and it's capital. But how many nations and caps. can you name from Latin America? Probly not so many. So not many Americans will be able to answer your quiz. But then again I have meet Americans who don't know when Canada is. and others think (even some form the Northern States) think well all live in Igloos.

In which continent is Borneo?
Don't know
What is the Capital of Kenya?
don't know
Apart from being a thunderbird who was Virgil?
not a clue
What language do they speak in Nigeria?
3 different offical Languages, 250 in all. (I did a unit on this country in grade school and we never covered the fact that it used to be a British holding)
Name the world's three largest rivers,
Amazon, Nile, don't know
Which city was destroyed during the Punic wars?
when where the Puntic wars. when I think Punic I think Alexander the Great. but I'm probly confusing it with Pontus, which was a nation that rose from Alexanders Empire.

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?

cuz Hollywood made it, and Americans think that the war was largely them vs the Axis.( that's just what I have seen in from talking to Americans.) and us Canucks did most are fighting in the northern nations and Itatly, not France.

maybe it's not american schools that we should worry about...

unless you count the french who have a tendency to try and project the image of a super power so they use huge aircraft carriers and speedy mirages.

You mean those beauties?:

http://www.avpics.de/lffamp/axalp-mirage.wmv (7.76 MB)

http://www.robert-stetter.de/Axalp2000/Video/mirage_01.mpg (1.2 MB)

http://www.robert-stetter.de/Axalp2000/Video/mirage_02.mpg (1.2 MB)

Swiss service 2000's,not the latest Mirages, but not forgoten...still great plaines, altough Rafaele is a F-16 (aso) eater for breakfast, I like the older series.

War 'tween US and EU?

Naval victory for US is probably around 95% assured.

Air victory just as likely, because the Navy has more aircraft than the airforce.

Ground victory is too close to call. The Abrams may not be the best tank out there, but it's proven itself to pwn everything it sees. Let's not forget why America has built the reputation of its military power, either.

You mean those beauties?:

http://www.avpics.de/lffamp/axalp-mirage.wmv (7.76 MB)

http://www.robert-stetter.de/Axalp2000/Video/mirage_01.mpg (1.2 MB)

http://www.robert-stetter.de/Axalp2000/Video/mirage_02.mpg (1.2 MB)

Swiss service 2000's,not the latest Mirages, but not forgoten...still great plaines, altough Rafaele is a F-16 (aso) eater for breakfast, I like the older series.

The thing is the F-16 isn't so much an air superiority fighter. It plays the role of a light tactical bomber. A better comparison for a air superiority fighter like the Rafale is the F-15, which is an old out of date plane we are replacing with the F-22.

War 'tween US and EU?

Naval victory for US is probably around 95% assured.

Air victory just as likely, because the Navy has more aircraft than the airforce.

Ground victory is too close to call. The Abrams may not be the best tank out there, but it's proven itself to pwn everything it sees. Let's not forget why America has built the reputation of its military power, either.

Navally yes you probably would win.

In the air... erm no... about equal

Ground, Europeans (better tanks, better training, better tactics (not strategy!)

you scenario wouldnt work. russia couldnt stay completly neutral in such a case, theyre too closely tied to europe. and in some european countrys like the UKit would start civil wars, and not help in the US/EU war efford. but in the end i think it would be a draw.
american forces couldnt hold ground in europe for long, and EU would have to build a hugh navy first to defeat the american navy for any possible invasion first.

i havent read everything, but its 22 pages. so sorry if im offtopic.
and Germany IS occupied by us troops. :mad:

you scenario wouldnt work. russia couldnt stay completly neutral in such a case, theyre too closely tied to europe. and in some european countrys like the UKit would start civil wars, and not help in the US/EU war efford. but in the end i think it would be a draw.
american forces couldnt hold ground in europe for long, and EU would have to build a hugh navy first to defeat the american navy for any possible invasion first.

i havent read everything, but its 22 pages. so sorry if im offtopic.
and Germany IS occupied by us troops. :mad:

Russia would stay Neutral.

So would China.

Why? Why not... just let the EU and US come to you with mega deals for you to get involved etc or just wait it out til they blow each other to shreds and then conquer whats left.

In the UK there would be no civil war. We would be dissentious possibly depending on the reasoning for war, but if America hurt the UK (like cruise missled it) in the war, then the UK would go vehrmently anti-American and would go out of it's way to hurt America.

No side could invade the other, there might be battles in satellite areas e.g. possibly in Africa and the Far East.

Also in such a war N. Korea would all most certainly take the opportunity to take out S. Korea in a first strike. So the war would certainly widen given a year or two to an all out global conflict. When the Superpowers are kicking the beep out of each others everyones grivences will come out and you'll probably have a load of civil wars in Africa, Middle East and on Asiatic Russia's borders.

Exercise in futility.

Neither side can muster sufficient force - even with conscription - to conquer the other (thanks to that 3000-mile-wide pond we call the Atlantic), and civil unrest in the territories of the group on the offense would degrade their operating ability and perhaps eventually shut them down.

A naval blockade of Europe is highly unlikely and, while a major issue should it happen, not difficult with money to overcome. Remember, there's still pretty much the rest of the world to transport goods to by overland.

A naval blockade of the United States is impossible - the American Navy is too strong, and the coastline easier to defend.

If protracted, eventually looming oil shortages would kill the war machine of both assailant and defender outright.

The mental image of the US vs the EU causes me to recoil in horror... The well equiped inept vs a herd of cats... God Save the Civilian population!!! I suspect only China would win!!!

Canada would peacefully sit by, and let Europe and America anihilate each other, then Annex a couple Northern States, and Join China, India, Russia, and Australia as the new World powers. :D

And then Many Fluffles will be had by all! :fluffle:

My only thought is "Not this crap again!". :headbang:
This is my thought as well.

maybe it's not american schools that we should worry about...


He's probably from Ontario! :p

Navally yes you probably would win.

In the air... erm no... about equal

Ground, Europeans (better tanks, better training, better tactics (not strategy!)


Ehhhh I would have to argue that one ... as far as the better tanks ... i would say fairly equal honestly (not arguing the others because I am not familiar with tank training procedure ... only somewhat on hardware)

And the only "europe" tanks that come out equal are british again lol

Seems to be a reoccuring theme (and currently they dont field enough of them to stop an invasion by armor alone)

It is not as simple as some people would like to make it to be. Vietnam had no tank at all and they won.
Anyway, this the 2nd most stupid thread ever.

It is not as simple as some people would like to make it to be. Vietnam had no tank at all and they won.
Anyway, this the 2nd most stupid thread ever.


I understand that


And it seems to have kept a few of us simpletons entertained so I dont find it a complete waste of time

I would go with a tie:

Either side would not be able to do a succesfull landing as any fleet large enough to do an amphibious assault would get bombed to the bottom of the ocean, possibly by the use of a 'tactical nuke'.

I would go with a tie:

Either side would not be able to do a succesfull landing as any fleet large enough to do an amphibious assault would get bombed to the bottom of the ocean, possibly by the use of a 'tactical nuke'.


Ehhh I think the US navy could get them ashore (4 – 5 carrier bg’s would probably be an overkill)

But that would just leave them to get slaughtered on land :)

Ehhh I think the US navy could get them ashore (4 – 5 carrier bg’s would probably be an overkill)

But that would just leave them to get slaughtered on land :)

my point is that even when they are capable of transporting enough troops over sea in one go to conquer the other continent, a tactical nuke dropped by a plane from high altitudes can wipe the fleet out in the blink of an eye.

This is my thought as well.

That is why i included the "Huh?" opinion.

But anyway this does seem to interest people as it's over 20 pages, altough most of it propably the so usual NS Flaming. (havent read all the pages)

However, even more people dislike the US ;)

yes but the french are hated even more by the US :D

my point is that even when they are capable of transporting enough troops over sea in one go to conquer the other continent, a tactical nuke dropped by a plane from high altitudes can wipe the fleet out in the blink of an eye.


As far as it goes we were considering non nuclear war … if so ICBMS would fly on both sides and no reason to even move the fleet.


(now lets assume the EU broke the nuke out first … the AA capacity of a bg much less grouping of them is pretty powerful … that means no gravity but rather guided … and even so I think it would have about a 20% chance of actually making it through (I will find some stats if I can but most is classified) the usually way is to overwhelm … but nukes are not like other weapons … cant afford to send them in salvos of 10 or more :) just to get one through

And the only "europe" tanks that come out equal are british again lol

does Leopard 2 A8 ring a bell?
its the damn best tank in the world. the Abrahams is only better in speed.

As far as it goes we were considering non nuclear war … if so ICBMS would fly on both sides and no reason to even move the fleet.


(now lets assume the EU broke the nuke out first … the AA capacity of a bg much less grouping of them is pretty powerful … that means no gravity but rather guided … and even so I think it would have about a 20% chance of actually making it through (I will find some stats if I can but most is classified) the usually way is to overwhelm … but nukes are not like other weapons … cant afford to send them in salvos of 10 or more :) just to get one through
nukes are not "real" weapons like, say a tank. you cant use a nuke or both countrys, and most of the world with them, would be nothing but a radioacive wasteland. really, its useless to think that anyone would use a nuke in a war.

except bush maybe...against 3rd world countrys without nukes :rolleyes: but thats another story.

Do you just want ot rename this thread xenophobes annonymous?

does Leopard 2 A8 ring a bell?
its the damn best tank in the world. the Abrahams is only better in speed.


Lol if you take into account the problems such as crew visibility

Turret tracking issues
Original amour mount point issues

(and I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that they had the recent turret upgrade and KWS III upgrade with the new 140 mil gun)

I still stand by my statement (considering that the M1A1 is no longer the main battle tank but rather the M1A2)
With explosive armor on the M1A2 and considering the standard velocity for the KWSIII gun system penetration into crew compartments of the M1A2 is negligible where the reverse is not true

nukes are not "real" weapons like, say a tank. you cant use a nuke or both countrys, and most of the world with them, would be nothing but a radioacive wasteland. really, its useless to think that anyone would use a nuke in a war.

except bush maybe...against 3rd world countrys without nukes :rolleyes: but thats another story.


Um I think that is what I was pointing out ... that a single nuke wouldent be used it would be icbm's

Maybe i should have spelled it out clearer

Is it just me, or is this a pointless discussion?

Is it just me, or is this a pointless discussion?
Are not all online discussions pointless?

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?

:D :D Weellll :) because we can make cool comicbooks out of this sort of stories :D :D

:D :D Weellll :) because we can make cool comicbooks out of this sort of stories :D :D


I made a comic book once ... it was all stick figures though

The EU is not a defense alliance if that can give you a hint.

The EU is not a defense alliance if that can give you a hint.

*scratches head*
Hmmm I think I need more hints , this crossword puzzle is awfully hard

(and for those of you that haven’t been getting it today) [/sillyness]

USA with naval Superiority? lol.... 1/5 carriers? Britain has 5 or more Carriers alone, then add on Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc.. That would be over kill. Like i said last time, the USA could not hold a war this far out, but luckily for the EU they could hold a war out at the USA coasts because of the islands owned by Britain and France (Bermuda and some of the carribean) would be just the right supply lines.

If anything, the USA would need a country in the EU to use for a base to mount a successful war. (Britain ring any bells? lol)

Kirov......

How stupid that people think they have some advantage over another simply because of where they happened to be born. Did any of us choose to be European or American? Maybe a few, but the vast majority just root for the home team.

But in answer to the question, is there really any doubt the US would win? In light of facts that the United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than Russia's, which places second.

You people are nuts the US would crush those liberal slobs in short order

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.

You have so much to learn child.

Germany has a huge military including the reserves, over a million men. The American forces would easily fall because they are all isolated and would run out of ammo. European planes could stop resupplying missions. Frances is a world Military power, among Russia the US Britain China and Germany. Poland is in the EU now. maybe you'd get Latvia or Lithuania, but you can take'em.
Italy won world war 1, remember, they were the southern front for Austria...Spain and Portugal aren't world powers because other countries passed them, they have large navies too. And like someone said earlier, England would side with the side who was attacked.

USA with naval Superiority? lol.... 1/5 carriers? Britain has 5 or more Carriers alone, then add on Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc.. That would be over kill. Like i said last time, the USA could not hold a war this far out, but luckily for the EU they could hold a war out at the USA coasts because of the islands owned by Britain and France (Bermuda and some of the carribean) would be just the right supply lines.

If anything, the USA would need a country in the EU to use for a base to mount a successful war. (Britain ring any bells? lol)

Kirov......

What kind of crack are you smoking and where can I get some?

But seriously, the Krauts have ZILCH aircraft carriers, the Italians have Zilch, the Spaniards have Zilch, the French have 3, only one of which is a full sized carrier.

You brits either have 2 or 3 small carriers, which can only carry the Harrier. Not a bad plane, but it has short range.

The US on the other hand has 12 supercarriers. The newest of which being the Ronald Reagan. These ships can field F/A 18s, F 14s, AWACs type aircraft, airborne tankers and varied other heavy planes.

What kind of crack are you smoking and where can I get some?

But seriously, the Krauts have ZILCH aircraft carriers, the Italians have Zilch, the Spaniards have Zilch, the French have 3, only one of which is a full sized carrier.

You brits either have 2 or 3 small carriers, which can only carry the Harrier. Not a bad plane, but it has short range.

The US on the other hand has 12 supercarriers. The newest of which being the Ronald Reagan. These ships can field F/A 18s, F 14s, AWACs type aircraft, airborne tankers and varied other heavy planes.

crack is bad for you man.

Krauts? what decade are you living in. you also have to remember that if a war happens the germans and italians could easily build a strong navy. spain could too. who decides if the carriers are super? I say ours are super! f14's aren't good either and all the others are aging. :sniper:

You have so much to learn child.

Germany has a huge military including the reserves, over a million men. The American forces would easily fall because they are all isolated and would run out of ammo. European planes could stop resupplying missions. Frances is a world Military power, among Russia the US Britain China and Germany. Poland is in the EU now. maybe you'd get Latvia or Lithuania, but you can take'em.
Italy won world war 1, remember, they were the southern front for Austria...Spain and Portugal aren't world powers because other countries passed them, they have large navies too. And like someone said earlier, England would side with the side who was attacked.

Great. Go beat someone besides France and we'll take Germany seriously.

Americans run out of anything? Right.

France hasn't won anything on their own since Napoleon, and that's only because they were being led by a non-Frenchman. :D

Italy only won in WW1 because:
1) By mid 1915, the entire Austrian military was basically a well-tailored German militia.
2) The Russians had withdrawn from the war.
3) Franz Joseph was past his prime in 1912, never mind in WW1.

Pointing to Italian military greatness is absurd. They needed German help to win in the Balkans and Ethiopia! Heck, in WW1 the Italian & Austrian fleets didn't even *engage* each other.

Spain and Portugal? Sure, they HAD large navies a few hundreds of years ago.

England probably has the best Navy in Europe. And it's basically an anti-sub arm of Nato that can launch a task force once a generation. (Egypt 50s, Falklands 80s, Iraq 00s.)

I have the highest regard for my European friends, but they way some of you are talking it seems you are in fantasy land.

The only time I want to see "EU vs USA" is in World Cup Hockey.

And the only "europe" tanks that come out equal are british again lol




How can you say that :rolleyes:
Here some US info about the worldst best modern tank (US info):

Altough I am absolutely not sure about the latest Challenger being better the the latest Abrahams, the latest Leopard2 version surely is, this might help for the pro EU side:
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm
(done by Americans BTW)



and a nice pick:http://www.army-technology.com/proj...d/leopard1.html

I still stand by my statement (considering that the M1A1 is no longer the main battle tank but rather the M1A2)
With explosive armor on the M1A2 and considering the standard velocity for the KWSIII gun system penetration into crew compartments of the M1A2 is negligible where the reverse is not true


Idem, see US info above.
The thungsten steel is also harder and of better quality.
only way that the US can catch up (only that, not more)with the Leopard2 A6 is when it (like the US plans to do) replaces the US gun with the "uber" 120mm. gun of the Leopard, just read the links.

How can you say that :rolleyes:
Here some US info about the worldst best modern tank (US info):

Altough I am absolutely not sure about the latest Challenger being better the the latest Abrahams, the latest Leopard2 version surely is, this might help for the pro EU side:
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press1.htm
http://www.forecast1.com/press/press70.htm
(done by Americans BTW)



and a nice pick:http://www.army-technology.com/proj...d/leopard1.html

close but it is comparing it to the M1A2 package ... the gun has been changed in the M1A2A package

One of the very nice modular features of the tank

How stupid that people think they have some advantage over another simply because of where they happened to be born. Did any of us choose to be European or American? Maybe a few, but the vast majority just root for the home team.

But in answer to the question, is there really any doubt the US would win? In light of facts that the United States military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next twenty biggest spenders combined, and six times larger than Russia's, which places second.

No, there is no doubt. It's just people sticking by their home nations.

What kind of crack are you smoking and where can I get some?
Probably on every streetcorner in America.

But seriously, the Krauts have ZILCH aircraft carriers, the Italians have Zilch, the Spaniards have Zilch, the French have 3, only one of which is a full sized carrier.

You brits either have 2 or 3 small carriers, which can only carry the Harrier. Not a bad plane, but it has short range.

The Italians have one, with a second one under construction and the Spaniards have another one.

Right... You're thinking of France. The US military doesn't run away.
Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq (coming soon according to Robert Novak)

Of course France is even worse... WW2, Vietnam, Algeria, Egypt (suez crisis) but still you have to be fair.

Great. Go beat someone besides France and we'll take Germany seriously.

Americans run out of anything? Right.

France hasn't won anything on their own since Napoleon, and that's only because they were being led by a non-Frenchman. :D

Italy only won in WW1 because:
1) By mid 1915, the entire Austrian military was basically a well-tailored German militia.
2) The Russians had withdrawn from the war.
3) Franz Joseph was past his prime in 1912, never mind in WW1.

Pointing to Italian military greatness is absurd. They needed German help to win in the Balkans and Ethiopia! Heck, in WW1 the Italian & Austrian fleets didn't even *engage* each other.

Spain and Portugal? Sure, they HAD large navies a few hundreds of years ago.

England probably has the best Navy in Europe. And it's basically an anti-sub arm of Nato that can launch a task force once a generation. (Egypt 50s, Falklands 80s, Iraq 00s.)

I have the highest regard for my European friends, but they way some of you are talking it seems you are in fantasy land.

What did they teach you in school

Germany is powerful, but now we got the rest of europe with us, so we can't be invaded, so it would be a tie most likely.

Austria was still powerful in 1915, and they had the advantages of mountains. Russia was on Italy's side, so if they withdrew, it would make it more difficult for Italy.

Spain and Portugal still navies, but since they aren't constantly waging wars, there is no need for a larger one. but they could mobalize a large one quickly.

close but it is comparing it to the M1A2 package ... the gun has been changed in the M1A2A package

One of the very nice modular features of the tank

No, the German gun is still not delivered to the US (and it will take a while now, regarding the US political attacks towards Europe). Besides the gun, the Leo2 A6 still has a more reliable German engine and better range/target finders, night fighter capacities are equal because the Abrahams to uses the "Zeiss" optics, wich is German (so deliveries could stop in case of hostilities).

Leopard 2A6 is definatly the best by US sources (sorry).

A couple years ago the Greeks made some tests with modern tanks such as M1A2, Leo 2A6, Challenger 2, T 90, T 80U and the LeClerc.
The only test that Challenger were the best was the range test.
Every other tests that were made was the Leo 2A6 the winner.

I think that Leopard2A6 and the latest Abrahams are the best now, with a small advance for the Leopard (but since they are allies, the US will benefit the more modern European technology in this matter, like the EU states benefited from th eUS in other millitary).

Nice to meat people like you :) that are informed about the millitary on NS. Most here aren't.

What did they teach you in school

Germany is powerful, but now we got the rest of europe with us, so we can't be invaded, so it would be a tie most likely.

Austria was still powerful in 1915, and they had the advantages of mountains. Russia was on Italy's side, so if they withdrew, it would make it more difficult for Italy.

Spain and Portugal still navies, but since they aren't constantly waging wars, there is no need for a larger one. but they could mobalize a large one quickly.

And world war one capabilities are about as useful as a stapler in modern combat.

crack is bad for you man.

Krauts? what decade are you living in. you also have to remember that if a war happens the germans and italians could easily build a strong navy. spain could too. who decides if the carriers are super? I say ours are super! f14's aren't good either and all the others are aging. :sniper:

Germany doesn't have any carriers. If you might kindly consider looking in Jane's, you might be able to figure this out.

And a supercarrier is defined by capacity, American carriers have the largest capacity, the Charles DeGaulle is smaller than any of the Nimitz class ships, and that is the largest French carrier.

And I use the term Krauts in an affectionate way, as I am of German descent. The F-14 isn't so good in itself, but the Phoenix missile complement is enough to take out an entire squadron of enemy fighters from double the enemy fighters missile range.

And you do realize how long it takes to build a carrier such as the American Nimitz class? It takes months on a crash program, and years on a normal program.

The USA would win but they would lose many men. Because we are bigger, richer, more powerful, and we have an American attitude we could win against ANY COUNTRY.

What we dont have England! But Blair and Bush are gun buddies!!!!
ok, if no nukes were used(casue that would kill us all), the answer is clear. WHOS THE FEARED IMPERALIST TYRANT? THE US! MUHAHAHAHHA!

The USA would win.
All you have to do to figure this out logically is look at Airforce and Navy sizes along with how much (most importantly) who spends more on the military.
The combined amount of money spent in all the EU nations over the last ten years on the military is a drop in the bucket of American expenditures.
The EU would need China.

Just for the record, i didnt feel like reading 25 pages.

Anyhoo, the U.S. would win.

Why?

Well, the U.S. has the best Army in the world, the best/largest airforce, the best/largest Navy, and not to mention the U.S. could raise a larger army than Europe.

Not to mention, we have the coolest bombers in the world! Plus we have napalm...

AND we have the best tanks(M1A2's. And yes, they are better than T-90's.), and we spend LOADS more on our Army. Plus, I can see the U.S. invading Europe, but not vice-versa.

Now that i think about it, This would never happen. Thats like asking "What if a cream pie and a chocolate pie went boxing? Who would win?" This is SERIOUSLY impossible.

Now U.S. vs. China, THERE"s a possibility.

The USA would win.
All you have to do to figure this out logically is look at Airforce and Navy sizes along with how much (most importantly) who spends more on the military.
The combined amount of money spent in all the EU nations over the last ten years on the military is a drop in the bucket of American expenditures.
The EU would need China.

I think China would side with US considering how their economies are so intertwined. An alliance like that would be truely unstople.(aside from nukes of course) Even if china didnt side with US and was nuetral(and no nukes were used) The US would still win. Exspecialy if its new premptive attack stratigy remains in effect. fighting would begin before either side could build any new forces, and probaly severly damage both economies. This would force them to rely on standing forces alot more(which us has more well funded troops). Another thing the US has proved is it has the logistical capablity to deploy large amounts of troops nearly anywhere in a very short time.

Wow, if the USA went to war against the EU the EU would soon break apart, i can't see england going to war with the USA ever, but France and germany perhaps and neither of them are going to put up much of fight.


i mean when has the french won a major battle without the aid of the USA or britain?

What did they teach you in school

Germany is powerful, but now we got the rest of europe with us, so we can't be invaded, so it would be a tie most likely.

Austria was still powerful in 1915, and they had the advantages of mountains. Russia was on Italy's side, so if they withdrew, it would make it more difficult for Italy.

Spain and Portugal still navies, but since they aren't constantly waging wars, there is no need for a larger one. but they could mobalize a large one quickly.

You mean, when I graduated university with my history degree in 1995? Quite a bit more than you, I'm guessing. :)

The rest of Europe with you? Ah, you mean the Chocolate Maker's union of Germany, France, & Belgium? I hate to point this out to you, but most of Europe does *not* automatically like the France/Germany bloc. And by that, I mean Poland, Italy, Spain, Czech Rep and Greece. Throw in Slovakia, the Baltics... not to mention the UK.
But that's not the point. Invaded by whom? The USA?
I posit that if you're actually worried about that, you've got a much, much bigger problem.
I love Europe. I've spent several years of my life there, including a few months in Vienna. But to compare Europe to the USA militarily is like comparing Harhare to Paris as a center of culture.

Austria was a rabble in WW1. They failed to win even one conclusive battle against the Russians, and were only saved because of Russia's ineptitude and the Germany successes of Hindenburg & Ludendorff. They managed to beat Serbia, which (lets face it), you'd damn well hope they could.

Er... my point was that the only reason AUSTRIA lasted as long as it did was because Russia withdrew and Austria was able to reposition troops from the east into the Italian theatre.

Are you kidding? In 1700 the House of Habsburg died out in Spain, and so did Spanish power, for all intents and purposes. They quickly lost most of their new world colonies in the 100 years following that. By 1895 (the Spanish-American War), the US wiped them out of Cuba and smashed their Navy off the Phillipeans. You're confusing their past with now.

ok just to correct a few things and let this amusing flamewar continue:

- Leopard 2 A8 is the latest Version. Better than this stupid Abrahams, period.

- Who needs Aircraft Carriers?!? far too expensive. Did you know about the U220 (or U221. not sure)? Its a new H/K Sub the amis wanted the plans for desperatly. its so small and agile that it can kill all american subs classes without problems. ships too, so who needs carriers? and now start guessing who suffers the bigger loss when 1 carrier, or 10 of these subs are sunk. ;)

-one of you said he is of german heritage so he has the right to call all germans "Krauts". wrong. you are an american now, and have no right to call those people names that doesnt turn their back towards their homecountry.

-i dont think a US vs EU is so unrealistic. Beside China, the EU is the only "Nation(s)" that come close to americas status in the world. a united EU would definatly leave USA behind in everything, and he (bush) does everything that this never happens, look at Turkey for example. But should the EU still manage to unite sometime in the future, i think a attack may become reality. (and now dont say the americans wouldnt do EVERYTHING to stay the only Superpower in the World!)

The USA would win.
All you have to do to figure this out logically is look at Airforce and Navy sizes along with how much (most importantly) who spends more on the military.

Why so many of you think that huge army would be such an important issue? It's not about size, it's about training, tactics, enviroment etc. The "mightiest" doesn't always win.
I know it's not the same thing, but let me give you few examples
Soviet union couldn't invade Finland in WWII though they had ten times more men and equipment on the border.
Remember Vietnam?
Germany and Italy together coudn't beat Greece in WWII.

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.

Correct. And incorrect. The US has plenty of oil. The 'national reserves' they have is primarily protected from exploitation due to its main purpose to provide a war effort if ever it is needed when other supplies are stopped. Why do you think they have been reluctant to do it now and in the past?

If anything like this were to happen (unlikey) the US would have the upper hand on all facets of military power other than sheer manpower, this alone would rule out any successful attempts of invasion. This being said, the US could do a hell of a lot of damage to Europe with conventional weaponry, and no-one can deny that.

On the other hand, if the EU countries decided to attack the US, they would most likely do some serious damage to the eastern seaboard before the US gets their forces to the area which would then mean bye bye to the EU forces.

All in all, if the EU was cornered they would probably surrender. But if the US were cornered, they would more than likely use their nuclear capability to uttery disable the EU countries.

But this is all speculation, and unfounded speculation to say the least.

In fact, speculation is not the right word i was looking for, maybe bullshit is more apt? :)

Uh america's ego reers its ugly head!

Why would you want to attack your allies anyway? Just for the sake of the discussion ide say america because they would come up with some excuse such as terrorists and nuke the hell out of us and just happen to hit civilion homes more often than military complexes on a rate of 5000:1.

I suspect that the EU would have more of an edge. Assuming that Britain supported the EU most of their traditional allies probably would too. The Middle East would probably side against America, maybe not with the EU, but against America.

If they did go to war you can bet that huge amounts of th Americans that did not want to fight would run to Canada again. It's almost tradidtional that every war has some of them heading north. While Canada doen't have the military power to try to invade or anything you can bet there would be a great deal of 'underground resistance'. After the re-election of Bush they seem to be more annoyed with the US than ever. I also gather many of them felt really insulted about the way Bush treated the Soft Wood Lumber & Mad Cow issues.

Speaking of Bush, lets face it if he was actually involved in the military planning they'd lose for sure. Either way though WAY too many people would get killed.

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.

Yep, the untied states of europe - i'll vote for that.

And the UK and US don't share militaries but they're on the same side in Iraq.

The USA would win but they would lose many men. Because we are bigger, richer, more powerful, and we have an American attitude we could win against ANY COUNTRY.

I love you. Every time I think "maybe americans aren't so bad after all" I remember you.

ps - vietnam.

Why so many of you think that huge army would be such an important issue? It's not about size, it's about training, tactics, enviroment etc. The "mightiest" doesn't always win.

Germany and Italy together coudn't beat Greece in WWII.
uh hate to correct you here but your wrong. italy couldnt beat greece. they attacked and got driven back after a week. germany just walked over greece without problems.

and army size isnt so important. everything counts in a war, leadership, morale of the homefront, ability to recover from losses, moral of the soldiers, economy, etc. all of that must be counted to strengh. and haveing strong units isnt something good sometimes. let me give you an example. 2 countrys have the have the same budget for new planes, one of them buys 2 ultra strong super fighters. the other buys for the same money 500 standard fighters. now guess who will win and which country will suffer more on the loss of 1 plane.
thats what i mean with your carriers, when 1 of them is sunk its a tremendous loss that will hurt america badly. a handfull of subs wont hurt us much.

Uh america's ego reers its ugly head!

Why would you want to attack your allies anyway? Just for the sake of the discussion ide say america because they would come up with some excuse such as terrorists and nuke the hell out of us and just happen to hit civilion homes more often than military complexes on a rate of 5000:1.
standart american tactic: bomb everything to rubble and when nothing moves anymore, go in and say your a superhero. :rolleyes:

No one could win. The EU hasn't got the abilty to move troops to the USA, and the USA could not control the air thus not being able to land troops.

I love you. Every time I think "maybe americans aren't so bad after all" I remember you.

ps - vietnam.

If I knew you personally, I'd give you a dollar for that one. I don't, so unfortunately all you get is a :D

I love you. Every time I think "maybe americans aren't so bad after all" I remember you.

ps - vietnam.

I love you, every time I think "Europeans aren't so bad" I have to put the word "most" in front because I remember people like you.

Well, the US is 53% of the world's naval force, and the only navy in the world with modern Battleships. It has the largest carrier force and the largest submarine fleet too.

The US would have complete control of the seas.

The US also has the biggest airforce and the best planes, and the Navy and Marine pilots are the best in the world.

The US has the best land force and the United States Marines are the most effective combat force of all time.

Germany's military is made from conscription, the US' is all volunteers. With the exception of the French Foreign Legion, France's military just can't measure up against America's. Can you name the last time Italy won a war? Spain would never commit to a cause, after the terrorist attack in March this year they completely gave up their part in the War on Terror. All the Eastern European nations use outdated Soviet equipment and it has been proven that Soviet material stands no chance against American.

With Tony Blair in power Britain would never fight America. The UK might not help the US in a war against the EU but it wouldn't fight it either...

I don't see any way the US wouldn't win.

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.
F/A-18F Super hornet is a new design.
Also the Ivory Coast does not really count as combat.
Long story short though, this is a very stupid thread, the militaries of all these EU/USA nations are closely tied as well, and Bush isn't going to invade the EU, and the EU isn't going to invade the US.

I love you. Every time I think "maybe americans aren't so bad after all" I remember you.

ps - vietnam.
Just a note...the military won their effort in Vietnam.Every Single Engagement was militarily won. The political will to fight is why the USA withdrew, and still is the main question in any war...America has to be angry to fight, and even then, the anger usually fades quickly. In WW2,after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, still within a year the public taste for the war was staarting to fade. It has been so in each war, partially because in most cases we were helping"allies"rather than actually fighting for our survival.

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.

Yeah we do. You sold us the tech and we can detect your stealth since we analysied it.

Well, the US is 53% of the world's naval force, and the only navy in the world with modern Battleships. It has the largest carrier force and the largest submarine fleet too.

The US would have complete control of the seas.


Debateable. Very few of you ships are posted in the north atlantic where as nearly all of Britains are and most of the other European nations. And even if you did, when was the last time any of your ships fought a shooting war with other ships like them? Britain has far more experiance than the US in naval combat.


The US also has the biggest airforce and the best planes, and the Navy and Marine pilots are the best in the world.


Debateable. The EU has the Eurofighter which easily equals the F22 (which isnt in production yet, the Eurofighter is though) and not the biggest airforce. Thats China (not that we are discussing them).


The US has the best land force and the United States Marines are the most effective combat force of all time.


NOT TRUE. The American Marine and US special forces training is the equivlent of British rank and file training. There is no doubt that while the British army is smaller, it is more professional than the American one.

Any US vs EU war would be very short. The US has long range strategic bombers and cruise missiles. The other countries do not. The US has E-bombs. Electromagnetic Pulse, which destroy electronics for around 20-50 miles, depending on terrain. Within the second week, the EU would be crippled due to strikes from these weapons. With Aerospace superiority, the US would easily be able to negociate a favorable peace. If I absolutly have to invade, I'd use E-bombs, and then wait 10-20 years to develop better tech, for the EU tech and population to decline, then walk over the remnants of their civilization. That is not the perfered option by the way.

The F-15 and F-16, are in fact inferior airplanes to the latest generation Migs and Su aircraft. The US airplanes have done better in combat because of better weapons, superior doctrine and training. The F-22 has a massive advantage in all respects over other contemperary aircraft, along with the aforementioned none aircraft advatages. So, to the debate earlier, the US warplanes do need to be replaced, they are older and inferior. In Air Force tests, USAF pilots in Migs and Sus were easily able to beat USAF pilots in F-15s and F-16s. However, Poles in Migs and Sus were unable to beat USAF pilots in F-15s and F-16s. It was all a matter of training levels and doctrine.

1.Debateable. Very few of you ships are posted in the north atlantic where as nearly all of Britains are and most of the other European nations. And even if you did, when was the last time any of your ships fought a shooting war with other ships like them? Britain has far more experiance than the US in naval combat.



2. Debateable. The EU has the Eurofighter which easily equals the F22 (which isnt in production yet, the Eurofighter is though) and not the biggest airforce. Thats China (not that we are discussing them).



3. NOT TRUE. The American Marine and US special forces training is the equivlent of British rank and file training. There is no doubt that while the British army is smaller, it is more professional than the American one.

1. The U.S. is FAR more trained in MODERN naval combat, my friend. We destroyed the Japanesse Navy, while, sadly, the British Navy was blown out of the water. Plus, there hasnt been a REAL naval war since.

2. China Doesnt have the biggest Airforce. It has the biggest ARMY. And even IF China had a bigger airforce, it's probably made up of old MiG-17's or something. Nothing very modern.

2. Yeah right, bub! The American Army is the elite. Now, while BEFORE the 1940's yours may have been better, but the U.S. Army is the best. We are the best equiped, best trained, we spend more on our soldiers than anyone else, and they are greatly supported. The American army could EASILY defeat the British Army. And deffinetly the French(they still use CONSCRIPTS O_o. And i saw that on the discovery channel on a show made by BRITISH people. Of course, they said the Brits were the bestest but...)

1. The U.S. is FAR more trained in MODERN naval combat, my friend. We destroyed the Japanesse Navy, while, sadly, the British Navy was blown out of the water. Plus, there hasnt been a REAL naval war since.


Err, yes there has, see Falklands. Im sure their a paragraph or too on it in your history panflets.


2. China Doesnt have the biggest Airforce. It has the biggest ARMY. And even IF China had a bigger airforce, it's probably made up of old MiG-17's or something. Nothing very modern.


China air force size = 35201 combat jets
American air force size = 25981 combat jets

Source essential millitaria accurate till December 2003. I dont think the US has produced 10,000 aircraft in that time.


2. Yeah right, bub! The American Army is the elite. Now, while BEFORE the 1940's yours may have been better, but the U.S. Army is the best. We are the best equiped, best trained, we spend more on our soldiers than anyone else, and they are greatly supported. The American army could EASILY defeat the British Army. And deffinetly the French(they still use CONSCRIPTS O_o. And i saw that on the discovery channel on a show made by BRITISH people. Of course, they said the Brits were the bestest but...)

Best trained NO. The British army uses the same training on their rank and file that you do for your specail forces. That is FACT. Whilst maybe in numbers you may have us, we are more professional and equally well equiped. When entering Iraq, the British SAS and Royal Marines were the ones that freed up the bridges that allowed the US tanks to enter many key cities. And as for spending more, spending more on something does not make it nessecarly better

Blackadder "Baldrick what is that!"

*Baldrick walks in with Giant Parsnip on head* "Its the worlds largest parsnip sir, cost me £10,000"

Blackadder "Where did you find a parsnip costing £10,000"

Baldrick "Well I had to haggle"

(paraphrase)

Debateable. Very few of you ships are posted in the north atlantic where as nearly all of Britains are and most of the other European nations. And even if you did, when was the last time any of your ships fought a shooting war with other ships like them? Britain has far more experiance than the US in naval combat.



Debateable. The EU has the Eurofighter which easily equals the F22 (which isnt in production yet, the Eurofighter is though) and not the biggest airforce. Thats China (not that we are discussing them).



NOT TRUE. The American Marine and US special forces training is the equivlent of British rank and file training. There is no doubt that while the British army is smaller, it is more professional than the American one.


The US is capable of deploying the full fleet into the North Atlantic in a very short period of time. We'd have access to the Panama canal and all. Anyways, we can use B-52s and B-1s in a maritime bomber role and peg other ships with cruise missiles as a stopgap measure

The Eurofighter is not actually a superior or even equal fighter to the F-22. The Eurofighter is a multipurpose plane, similar in role to the F-16, whilst the F-22 is a pure fighter. It utilizes super-cruising and stealthy capabilities. Neither of which the Eurofighter, the Rafale or the Russian built planes has. If you can shoot and run before they see you, you are far more likely to win. Whilst the People's Liberation Army Air Force is the largest, their force is heavily reliant the J-7, a knockoff of the Mig-21 a very old plane.

Not true. Marine training is roughly equivalent to British forces training. But to compare Spec Ops training to regular troops training is madness. Spec Ops are not regular forces and they follow a totally different specialization. Delta Force (well, I assume, chiefly because Delta Force training regulations are still classified) is on par with SAS, whilst SEALS are designed for low impact insertion.

Err, yes there has, see Falklands. Im sure their a paragraph or too on it in your history panflets.



China air force size = 35201 combat jets
American air force size = 25981 combat jets

Source essential millitaria accurate till December 2003. I dont think the US has produced 10,000 aircraft in that time.



Best trained NO. The British army uses the same training on their rank and file that you do for your specail forces. That is FACT. Whilst maybe in numbers you may have us, we are more professional and equally well equiped. When entering Iraq, the British SAS and Royal Marines were the ones that freed up the bridges that allowed the US tanks to enter many key cities. And as for spending more, spending more on something does not make it nessecarly better




The Falklands? Dude, you were dicking around with that moron country called Argentina. Like there was any doubt that the Brits would wipe that puny frigate navy off the face of the earth. But you boys have cut a carrier since then if I recall (correct me if I'm wrong).

No disputing the China numbers.

To use the same training for regular forces as spec-ops guys is madness. Spec ops is for small, infantry forces, typically isolated in enemy territory. Regular forces have to know how to work in large forces, and unless the situation is really bad, they fight in a cohesive unit. The Brits may use higher quality training, but not the same as spec ops.

The UK completly owned in the Falklands, they fought a war 5000km away from home (and from the nearest base), and won. Argentina was under a military dictatorship at the time, and being supplied by the US and the French. They had a good navy, and a solid airforce. The British, despite a few blunders or two, simply kicked ass.

The Eurofighter is not actually a superior or even equal fighter to the F-22. The Eurofighter is a multipurpose plane, similar in role to the F-16, whilst the F-22 is a pure fighter. It utilizes super-cruising and stealthy capabilities. Neither of which the Eurofighter, the Rafale or the Russian built planes has. If you can shoot and run before they see you, you are far more likely to win. Whilst the People's Liberation Army Air Force is the largest, their force is heavily reliant the J-7, a knockoff of the Mig-21 a very old plane.

.


Actually, the Eurofighter as supercruise, and low radar signal technologies(though not stealth).

And the Eurofighter is cheaper than the F22. Costs roughly half the price. That means that for each F22 the US can field, Europe can field two.

Actually, the Eurofighter as supercruise, and low radar signal technologies(though not stealth).

And the Eurofighter is cheaper than the F22. Costs roughly half the price. That means that for each F22 the US can field, Europe can field two.

This Assuming the EU has the same amount of cash and the US doesnt its new premption policy and cripple their ablilty to make it.

1.Err, yes there has, see Falklands. Im sure their a paragraph or too on it in your history panflets.



2.China air force size = 35201 combat jets
American air force size = 25981 combat jets

Source essential millitaria accurate till December 2003. I dont think the US has produced 10,000 aircraft in that time.



3.Best trained NO. The British army uses the same training on their rank and file that you do for your specail forces. That is FACT. Whilst maybe in numbers you may have us, we are more professional and equally well equiped. When entering Iraq, the British SAS and Royal Marines were the ones that freed up the bridges that allowed the US tanks to enter many key cities. And as for spending more, spending more on something does not make it nessecarly better

4.Blackadder "Baldrick what is that!"

*Baldrick walks in with Giant Parsnip on head* "Its the worlds largest parsnip sir, cost me £10,000"

Blackadder "Where did you find a parsnip costing £10,000"

Baldrick "Well I had to haggle"

(paraphrase)

1. Wow, the Royal Navy defeated a tin-pot third world dictatorship in south America. Argetina= SOOOO SSSCCCAAAARRRRRYYYY!!!


2. I stand corrected.

Although, you have to admit, the U.S. Airforce is the best in the world(at LEAST better than the Chinese.) We have the best pilots, training, and armaments. Don't get me wrong, the RAF kicks-ass too. Just not as much as the USAF.

3. Um...NO. Listen, we have the BEST weapondry(and are developing beterererer ones), we have a larger army(around 600,000 men), they ARE better trained(if you dun think so, show me an UNBIASED source. Like from South Africa or something. Or France.)

4. ....

I'm scared. The Power of the Parsnip compells me.

This Assuming the EU has the same amount of cash and the US doesnt its new premption policy and cripple their ablilty to make it.


The EU GDP is bigger than of the US.
The US does not have the capability to destroy the entire EU industry of one night to the other.


BTW, how many US bombers are based in Europe?

The EU GDP is bigger than of the US.
The US does not have the capability to destroy the entire EU industry of one night to the other.


BTW, how many US bombers are based in Europe?


Alot. We have TONS of soldiers in Germany. Tens of thousands of 'em.

And, no offence, but i don't believe the EU has the capability to send a large enough army to invade the U.S. Even if it DID, We could just call up the draft and use our superior industry to arm millions of soldiers with M-16's and overwhelm you.

The EU GDP is bigger than of the US.
The US does not have the capability to destroy the entire EU industry of one night to the other.


BTW, how many US bombers are based in Europe?
But the key is the fact that in the EU huge amounts of the GDP are poured into the entitlement programs. Hell, if there was a war between the US and the EU the US would be able to raise taxes drastically and the people would still be able to keep 50% of their income. On the other hand, the EU has psychotically high taxes already. Like Germans pay nearly 60%. Take that number much higher and the average Joe ins't taking a whole lot of cash home.

Plus, the US has large amounts of unused military manufacturing capacity, which doesn't exist in the EU. For varied reasons.

We actually have been able to minimize US bomber commitment in the EU recently, the only strategic bombers are stationed at Aviano, and those are B-2s. Which can run and hide if something bad were to happen.

We might have some B-1s at Rammstein, but I'm not totally sure.

Most of the strategic bomber command is stationed in the US now, because with aerial refueling we can hit anywhere in the world from, say Barksdale in Louisiana.

Alot. We have TONS of soldiers in Germany. Tens of thousands of 'em.

And, no offence, but i don't believe the EU has the capability to send a large enough army to invade the U.S. Even if it DID, We could just call up the draft and use our superior industry to arm millions of soldiers with M-16's and overwhelm you.


Any force of the US in EU soil, in case of war, would be captured and/or destroyed.

And I do agree with you in the inability for the EU to invade the US, and vice versa. The Atlantic Ocean simply would put a too big logistical problem, no side would be able to bash the other so hard, that the loosing side would let a force of hundreds of thousands of men travell the thousands of miles of the Atlantic unbombed (the Japs tried to do that in guadalcanal, ferry and supply men across large distances.. oh boy, was it fun for the USN to blow them away..)..

For purposes of making this simple we can assume the total populations of both areas completely supports the war. If such was the case there is no way the EU would win. Besides, getting all the countries in the EU to cooperate smoothly would be well nigh impossible, especially if the French keep trying to assert superiority.

of course, the concept of a war between the EU and US is totally ludicrous, but it's fun to ramble about this sort of stuff.

But the key is the fact that in the EU huge amounts of the GDP are poured into the entitlement programs. Hell, if there was a war between the US and the EU the US would be able to raise taxes drastically and the people would still be able to keep 50% of their income. On the other hand, the EU has psychotically high taxes already. Like Germans pay nearly 60%. Take that number much higher and the average Joe ins't taking a whole lot of cash home.

Plus, the US has large amounts of unused military manufacturing capacity, which doesn't exist in the EU. For varied reasons.

We actually have been able to minimize US bomber commitment in the EU recently, the only strategic bombers are stationed at Aviano, and those are B-2s. Which can run and hide if something bad were to happen.

We might have some B-1s at Rammstein, but I'm not totally sure.

Most of the strategic bomber command is stationed in the US now, because with aerial refueling we can hit anywhere in the world from, say Barksdale in Louisiana.

Your economical reasoning is quite relevant. Indeed, your economy is more efficient than the one of the EU. Yet, the overall size (gross size) of the Eu should counter balance thi, IMHO.

(and in a war, should the EU strike first, i doubt that the US bombers could scramble and flee just like that.. they would most likely be caught on the ground)

of course, the concept of a war between the EU and US is totally ludicrous, but it's fun to ramble about this sort of stuff.

Amen!

Any force of the US in EU soil, in case of war, would be captured and/or destroyed.

And I do agree with you in the inability for the EU to invade the US, and vice versa. The Atlantic Ocean simply would put a too big logistical problem, no side would be able to bash the other so hard, that the loosing side would let a force of hundreds of thousands of men travell the thousands of miles of the Atlantic unbombed (the Japs tried to do that in guadalcanal, ferry and supply men across large distances.. oh boy, was it fun for the USN to blow them away..)..

Actually, the U.S. COULD invade Europe(we invaded Iraq, which was 50 bagillion miles away), and we COULD destroy a few small countries(Italy and Portugal, maybe.), but i agree the U.S. Army couldnt get too far. It would probably be because of logistics(YOU try feeding an army where theres 1,000 miles of angry frenchmen between you and your supply depot.). Now while i Think the chances of a U.S. Army being completely annhiliated are slim, the chances of them having to retreat would be big. Because, as stated before, how would they feed themselves?

And i ALSO pity a European army attacking the U.S. Seriously. You DONT want to get on a hillbillys bad side. Trust me. I know.

Debateable. Very few of you ships are posted in the north atlantic where as nearly all of Britains are and most of the other European nations. And even if you did, when was the last time any of your ships fought a shooting war with other ships like them? Britain has far more experiance than the US in naval combat.


Debateable. The EU has the Eurofighter which easily equals the F22 (which isnt in production yet, the Eurofighter is though) and not the biggest airforce. Thats China (not that we are discussing them).

NOT TRUE. The American Marine and US special forces training is the equivlent of British rank and file training. There is no doubt that while the British army is smaller, it is more professional than the American one.

Britain has far more experiance than the US in naval combat.

Maybe two hundred years ago, the US is the dominant naval power today. According to strategypage.com (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/navy/navalforcesoftheworld.asp), the US is 53.46% of the world's total naval force, Britain is far behind with 8.11%. The US has full 100% quality of sailors and ships and Britain has 90%. The US has 201 ships, Britain has 102. Now can you really say Britain can match the US on the seas?

Debateable. The EU has the Eurofighter which easily equals the F22 (which isnt in production yet, the Eurofighter is though) and not the biggest airforce. Thats China (not that we are discussing them).

The F22 is in production, we started producing them in 2004...While we don't have that many, full scale production will start very soon.

Right, China does have the largest air force I'll concede that, but the US still has the better air force. The Chinese only allow $19 per man, while the US spends about $245. Strategypage.com (http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/an.asp) gives the Chinese Air Force 3,300 total points, the US gets 7,500. That number is the total number of planes, quality of aircraft, ground crew, quality of pilots and leadership all rolled into one. Yes, the Chinese have a larger air force but the US Air Force is a lot better.

Yeah, the Eurofighter is a great plane, however it places no value stealth technology, the F-22 has one of the best stealth systems in the world. In a nutshell, I'd pick the F-22.

NOT TRUE. The American Marine and US special forces training is the equivlent of British rank and file training. There is no doubt that while the British army is smaller, it is more professional than the American one.

Sure about that? The American Marines have seen more action than any other unit in world history. In the Korean War, the First Marine Division was completely surrounded by odds 29:1. Despite this one division managed to destroy four Chinese divisions and cripple three more. 1 Marine Division=12,500 men, 1 Chinese Division=16,000 men you do the math.

The British army is smaller, but I would hardly call it "more professional." The British army was "more professional" in the Revolutionary War but that didn't matter in the end... I'm not dissing the British Armed Forces, they are the second best in the world after all...

Amen!

I second that motion! The U.S. and the E.U. would ne'er go to war. Why? Because the world would be split in two. All the rich europeans and Arabs on one side, and the U.S. and the 70 gillion nations that depend on U.S. aid on the other.

Plus, the E.U. and the U.S. are intertwined. They need each other or else it will screw up and die(XP). Expecially now that the world is inter-connected.

Actually, the U.S. COULD invade Europe(we invaded Iraq, which was 50 bagillion miles away), and we COULD destroy a few small countries(Italy and Portugal, maybe.), but i agree the U.S. Army couldnt get too far. It would probably be because of logistics(YOU try feeding an army where theres 1,000 miles of angry frenchmen between you and your supply depot.). Now while i Think the chances of a U.S. Army being completely annhiliated are slim, the chances of them having to retreat would be big. Because, as stated before, how would they feed themselves?

And i ALSO pity a European army attacking the U.S. Seriously. You DONT want to get on a hillbillys bad side. Trust me. I know.


Ah! But you had staging areas to Invade Iraq! You placed your ground forces in Kuwait and in Saudi Arabia, that facilitated alot the logistical part.

Ah! But you had staging areas to Invade Iraq! You placed your ground forces in Kuwait and in Saudi Arabia, that facilitated alot the logistical part.

True...

But we have OTHER staging areas.

Such as Morocco, perhaps.

Of course, u guys could use Canada or Frijolerolandia(Mexico).

Well, let's think about this in the right way please, using our knowledge of each camp's assets and of strategies.

1. UK's position :

Indeed their is a strong chance for the UK to get on the US's side in a US-EU war. This would give the US a staging base for operations ( land or air ) against the the EU. But on the other hand the EU has an amphibious capacity strong enough to support an EU attack on UK which could be quite easily destroyed by the combined might of the french and german air forces and land forces while Gibraltar would fall to a Spanish assault force.

2. Atlantic front :

A most crucial place in a EU-US fight would be the Atlantic. The US have between 10 and 15 availlable CVBG ( such a fight would see the re-activation of old ships mothballed ) and about 50 nuclear subs hunting the seas. On the other side, the EU has : 1 CVBG ( France's Charles de Gaule ), 3 british ships ( if UK sides with EU ), 1 spanish small carrier, 1 italian small carrier, about 20 air defense ships ( be they the new dutch, or the new german, or the new spanish AEGIS ships or, if the conflict start in some year Horizon class french and italian ships ) and about 50 subs ( some 20 germans, half a dozen spanish, as much italians, and some 20 french including 5 strategic boomers ) most of the diesel. The italians and the greeks would be tied in the med, protecting the Suez canal. The Spanish would take care of the Azores and Gibraltar sector ( if the UK sides with the EU only subs would be needed for this later sector ). That would leave the French and the Germans for the atlantic front from Greenland to the iberian peninsula. One place would be of utmost importance : Iceland. With Iceland in EU hands ( which means putting the US forces always staying there out ) the EU can launch air operation against aproaching US CVBG with Tornado bombers, Eurofighter air cover and eventually Rafale with stealth cruise missiles ( who said ANS ? :p ). The diesel subs would then have to cover Iceland, Eire, the western UK coast and the most likely place of US amphibious assault in Europe ( In south west France I think due to infrastructure considerations : Nantes and Bordeau's ports would provide a nice opertating base for US land forces ).

3. The Mediterranean sea :

Once any US force in theater has been eliminated it would be quite, with only patrols to prevent any force to go through the Suez and Gibraltar. How would the elimination of US forces in theater be achieved ? Land based air campaign with naval submarine reconaissance would do the trick I think. The only problem that could arise would be Israel giving protection to US forces in theater...

4. US operations

Against such a Festung Europa ( with the UK either pro-EU or defeated ) the US would have to cross the Atlantic, passing by the Icelandic watchdog, then defeating advanced fortress Eire in order to be able to stage a more important amphibious assault. The constant bombing by EU airforces ( do not forget the EU now has Storm Shadow/Apache stealth cruise missiles for small planes like Rafale, Mirage, Eurofighter and Tornado ) would be a constant problem limiting the size of the US deployement in Eire to mainly air superiority fighter and medium range bombers.

On the strategic bombing side, B-52 raids with ALCM ( air lauched cruise missile, basically air launched Tomahawk ) would be quickly taken care of by fighters in Iceland or Eire, helped by the french special radar that uses the reflection of radar emissions on the atmosphere to see over the horizon. Submarine launched Tomahawc would have a better chance if they can get close enough from the coast to strike a deep inland target. Something quite hard to achieve since the diesel patrol sub would be close to undetectable in shalow waters and in the Biscay gulf, especialy now that they have the Air Independant Propulsion system.

In any case they would not be able to strike against German's factories, only against some french one that would be rebuild inland, maybe in Poland or Hungary... Thus it would only delay production of weapons like the Rafale and electronics system like the Thales ones. A delay that could be critical in a war of atrition. Or could not...

5. EU offensive operation

Outside of EU operations against a hostile UK, what would be the EU options ? The french sub carries no cruise missiles, even if Apache might be converted for a sub lauched version. The british subs have tomahawks, but now many are in stockpiles. Buy russian cruise missiles ? maybe, but not sure. So, what is still availlable to the EU ? Some highly psychological air raids using stealth planes and stealth cruise missiles ? range might not be enough. Commando raids on the coasts launched from subs ? the problem is that the Rubis class is not that big, not like the modified SSN-21 Seawolf ( SSN-23 if I remember well ), smaller than Los Angeles class too. So this must also be ruled out.

CONCLUSION :

After a bloody air and sea war that would mostly affect France, UK and USA the game would be a draw. The US Navy would be heavily damaged or on the bottom, the french air arm and industry damaged, UK ravaged either by the loss of the Royal Navy or by the invasion, and the game would be a drawn.

Neither side could win this war. The Americans on this board are to familiar with their army fighting dudes hiding in doorways with AK47s and rocket launchers and wining that they think they could walk all over anyone, wrong I'm afraid.

The US couldn't even come out decisively against the low tech opposition in Korea or Vietnam how the hell would they win a war against a first rate opponent that would contain some of the world's best trained soldiers and equipement? And as for those who say one side has better equipment than the other, well I say neccesity is the mother of invention. we went from men on bycyles with wings to walking on the moon in 65 years mainly because of 2 world wars.

I guess a fair estimation of this war would be to take vietnam with it's damaging media coverage, conscription and terrible casualties and times it by about a hundred, add some battlefield nuclear weapons and major civilian casualties on both sides. I don't think people in the 21st have the stomach to fight this type of war, they'd string up their leaders.

Well, let's think about this in the right way please, using our knowledge of each camp's assets and of strategies.

1. UK's position :

Indeed their is a strong chance for the UK to get on the US's side in a US-EU war. This would give the US a staging base for operations ( land or air ) against the the EU. But on the other hand the EU has an amphibious capacity strong enough to support an EU attack on UK which could be quite easily destroyed by the combined might of the french and german air forces and land forces while Gibraltar would fall to a Spanish assault force.

2. Atlantic front :

A most crucial place in a EU-US fight would be the Atlantic. The US have between 10 and 15 availlable CVBG ( such a fight would see the re-activation of old ships mothballed ) and about 50 nuclear subs hunting the seas. On the other side, the EU has : 1 CVBG ( France's Charles de Gaule ), 3 british ships ( if UK sides with EU ), 1 spanish small carrier, 1 italian small carrier, about 20 air defense ships ( be they the new dutch, or the new german, or the new spanish AEGIS ships or, if the conflict start in some year Horizon class french and italian ships ) and about 50 subs ( some 20 germans, half a dozen spanish, as much italians, and some 20 french including 5 strategic boomers ) most of the diesel. The italians and the greeks would be tied in the med, protecting the Suez canal. The Spanish would take care of the Azores and Gibraltar sector ( if the UK sides with the EU only subs would be needed for this later sector ). That would leave the French and the Germans for the atlantic front from Greenland to the iberian peninsula. One place would be of utmost importance : Iceland. With Iceland in EU hands ( which means putting the US forces always staying there out ) the EU can launch air operation against aproaching US CVBG with Tornado bombers, Eurofighter air cover and eventually Rafale with stealth cruise missiles ( who said ANS ? :p ). The diesel subs would then have to cover Iceland, Eire, the western UK coast and the most likely place of US amphibious assault in Europe ( In south west France I think due to infrastructure considerations : Nantes and Bordeau's ports would provide a nice opertating base for US land forces ).

3. The Mediterranean sea :

Once any US force in theater has been eliminated it would be quite, with only patrols to prevent any force to go through the Suez and Gibraltar. How would the elimination of US forces in theater be achieved ? Land based air campaign with naval submarine reconaissance would do the trick I think. The only problem that could arise would be Israel giving protection to US forces in theater...

4. US operations

Against such a Festung Europa ( with the UK either pro-EU or defeated ) the US would have to cross the Atlantic, passing by the Icelandic watchdog, then defeating advanced fortress Eire in order to be able to stage a more important amphibious assault. The constant bombing by EU airforces ( do not forget the EU now has Storm Shadow/Apache stealth cruise missiles for small planes like Rafale, Mirage, Eurofighter and Tornado ) would be a constant problem limiting the size of the US deployement in Eire to mainly air superiority fighter and medium range bombers.

On the strategic bombing side, B-52 raids with ALCM ( air lauched cruise missile, basically air launched Tomahawk ) would be quickly taken care of by fighters in Iceland or Eire, helped by the french special radar that uses the reflection of radar emissions on the atmosphere to see over the horizon. Submarine launched Tomahawc would have a better chance if they can get close enough from the coast to strike a deep inland target. Something quite hard to achieve since the diesel patrol sub would be close to undetectable in shalow waters and in the Biscay gulf, especialy now that they have the Air Independant Propulsion system.

In any case they would not be able to strike against German's factories, only against some french one that would be rebuild inland, maybe in Poland or Hungary... Thus it would only delay production of weapons like the Rafale and electronics system like the Thales ones. A delay that could be critical in a war of atrition. Or could not...

5. EU offensive operation

Outside of EU operations against a hostile UK, what would be the EU options ? The french sub carries no cruise missiles, even if Apache might be converted for a sub lauched version. The british subs have tomahawks, but now many are in stockpiles. Buy russian cruise missiles ? maybe, but not sure. So, what is still availlable to the EU ? Some highly psychological air raids using stealth planes and stealth cruise missiles ? range might not be enough. Commando raids on the coasts launched from subs ? the problem is that the Rubis class is not that big, not like the modified SSN-21 Seawolf ( SSN-23 if I remember well ), smaller than Los Angeles class too. So this must also be ruled out.

CONCLUSION :

After a bloody air and sea war that would mostly affect France, UK and USA the game would be a draw. The US Navy would be heavily damaged or on the bottom, the french air arm and industry damaged, UK ravaged either by the loss of the Royal Navy or by the invasion, and the game would be a drawn.


Good theory.

Of course, if only we could use WMD's...

We have the best ICBM's so we'd blow them Europeans high and dry!

Now if only we had StarWars...

The US couldn't even come out decisively against the low tech opposition in Korea or Vietnam how the hell would they win a war against a first rate opponent that would contain some of the world's best trained soldiers and equipement? And as for those who say one side has better equipment than the other, well I say neccesity is the mother of invention. we went from men on bycyles with wings to walking on the moon in 65 years mainly because of 2 world wars.
The Korean War was a decisive victory for the US until China intervened - with numbers the EU does not have. We pushed them all the way to the Yalu.

Neither side could win this war. The Americans on this board are to familiar with their army fighting dudes hiding in doorways with AK47s and rocket launchers and wining that they think they could walk all over anyone, wrong I'm afraid.

The US couldn't even come out decisively against the low tech opposition in Korea or Vietnam how the hell would they win a war against a first rate opponent that would contain some of the world's best trained soldiers and equipement? And as for those who say one side has better equipment than the other, well I say neccesity is the mother of invention. we went from men on bycyles with wings to walking on the moon in 65 years mainly because of 2 world wars.

I guess a fair estimation of this war would be to take vietnam with it's damaging media coverage, conscription and terrible casualties and times it by about a hundred, add some battlefield nuclear weapons and major civilian casualties on both sides. I don't think people in the 21st have the stomach to fight this type of war, they'd string up their leaders.


Korea: We were OUTNUMBERED by the CHINESE AND THE NORTH KOREANS. There were also ALOT OF U.N. FORCES AS WELL.(that means Brits and Frenchies too).

Vietnam: Worst, decision, EVER!

Besides, both of these were BEFORE the Reformation of the Army. Heres a diagram thing.

Then
High School Education: Not needed.
Time spent training: Hardly any
Weapons: Primitive M-16's, not very good
Morale: Not good at ALL. They were all crack-heads, hippies, or over zealous,and were mostly conscripted.

Now
High School Education: Needed
Time Spent Training: Alot
Weapons: Improved M-16's, very good.
Morale: Excelent. All proud to serve their nation and all joined the army by WILL.

Hum the EU has got some very good pieces of atomics too ! The french subs are smaller and slower than the US ones but they are also creepier and stealthier. And the latest french SLBM is at least as precise as the latest Trident, which is used by the UK too ( they bought it from the US some years ago, but the bombs are UK made )

Hum the EU has got some very good pieces of atomics too ! The french subs are smaller and slower than the US ones but they are also creepier and stealthier. And the latest french SLBM is at least as precise as the latest Trident, which is used by the UK too ( they bought it from the US some years ago, but the bombs are UK made )

I gots one word: Minutemen.

Several things. Vietnam was only lost in the sense that we quit. Had the political situation stateside not been what it was then at worst we'd have a NK/SK situation in Vietnam and at best it would be one democracy. The US Army will soon switch over to the XM-8 over the M-16. The marines are probably going to switch to something like this: http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-socom.shtml . This will give them much greater stopping power than the piddly little .223(5.56mm) they currently use.

Several things. Vietnam was only lost in the sense that we quit. Had the political situation stateside not been what it was then at worst we'd have a NK/SK situation in Vietnam and at best it would be one democracy. The US Army will soon switch over to the XM-8 over the M-16. The marines are probably going to switch to something like this: http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-rifles-socom.shtml . This will give them much greater stopping power than the piddly little .223(5.56mm) they currently use.

Thats True. XM-8's will own anythign you guys send at us!(expecially seeing how its the first NEW standard gun that we've made for our military in 40 years. It's been in thar works a LONG time, and it STILL wont be done till '08)

The M14/M1 is still a much better weapon than the XM-8 platform when you get right down to it.

dp

I second that motion! The U.S. and the E.U. would ne'er go to war. Why? Because the world would be split in two. All the rich europeans and Arabs on one side, and the U.S. and the 70 gillion nations that depend on U.S. aid on the other.

Plus, the E.U. and the U.S. are intertwined. They need each other or else it will screw up and die(XP). Expecially now that the world is inter-connected.

Hmm, reality obliges you to interchange the words US and EU in your biased post since it is the EU that pays for most countries, like all US statistics show (Israel and Palestines money is allready 75% € money, you are only in it for the arms given to Israel, not for the peace processes).

BTW, for the guy that spoke about the medieval M16, why is it that the US army replaces US guns by EU guns like the minimi? Just because those so hated Euros make better quality.Period!

Who do you think would win if US and EU went to war against each other.
.....
-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.


Kiddie Wars:

JonnyTexas: If we ever go to War...My Army can Beat your Army...
KurtFavre: I dont think so... Your Soldiers are all tied up in Irak...
JonnyTexas:....lets just Imagine that...They would take a temporary Cease-Fire....Just in time to trasfer my troops to Europe.
KurtFavre: Are you considering the Russians?
JonnyTexas:....lets just Imagine that...For some reason they all freeze solid in Siberia.
KurtFavre: hmmm...What about the Chinese?
JonnyTexas: ....lets just Imagine that...they get lost in the Desert...
KurtFavre: We still have 1000 nukes, and as a last ressort we will use them...
JonnyTexas: ....lets just Imagine that... we can't use Nukes...
KurtFavre: Imaginatively....YOU WIN.
JonnyTexas: ....WOOHOO :D

We have the best ICBM's so we'd blow them Europeans high and dry!



Ever heared about retaliation :D ? Even France allone can kill the world 3 times, so all those (UK to of course) peacefull EU nuclear states that can develop A nukes noth in weeks but in days wil join the party because of the treason of the US.

Hell, you guys will be barbecued to, OK you have the luck that you'd be BBC by a civilised continent with better food and wines instead the Euros that will be BBC by MC Crap. :p

Neither side could win this war. The Americans on this board are to familiar with their army fighting dudes hiding in doorways with AK47s and rocket launchers and wining that they think they could walk all over anyone, wrong I'm afraid.

The US couldn't even come out decisively against the low tech opposition in Korea or Vietnam how the hell would they win a war against a first rate opponent that would contain some of the world's best trained soldiers and equipement? And as for those who say one side has better equipment than the other, well I say neccesity is the mother of invention. we went from men on bycyles with wings to walking on the moon in 65 years mainly because of 2 world wars.

I guess a fair estimation of this war would be to take vietnam with it's damaging media coverage, conscription and terrible casualties and times it by about a hundred, add some battlefield nuclear weapons and major civilian casualties on both sides. I don't think people in the 21st have the stomach to fight this type of war, they'd string up their leaders.

The US did come out desicisvely in both Vietnam and Korea, we may have not won totally won the conflict, but we proved that we,unlike the French, could defeat guerilla warfare.

The North Vietnamese had over 1.5 million dead, and the Viet Cong are believed to have lost about 700,000. The US lost only 58,226.

In North Korea, the US pushed the North Koreans all the way back to the border with China, only when China intervened did it become a stalemate. Against Chinese troops, the USMC 1st Marine Division became the most effective unit in history when it destroyed four Chinese divisions and crippled three more while surrounded 29:1.

The United States lost 33,000 men in North Korea, North Korea lost 520,000 and the Chinese suffered about 900,000 dead.

In total, the US lost around 90,000 in it's actions in South East Asia. It's opposition on the other hand, suffered about 3 million. So don't tell me the Americans did poorly in Vietnam and Korea...

Yes, the US would probably fair better against European Armies than 3rd World ones. The American Army excels at fighting large masses of troops, not spread out guerilla fighters. If the EU fights a traditional war, it won't stand a chance.

Ever heared about retaliation :D ? Even France allone can kill the world 3 times, so all those (UK to of course) peacefull EU nuclear states that can develop A nukes noth in weeks but in days wil join the party because of the treason of the US.

Hell, you guys will be barbecued to, OK you have the luck that you'd be BBC by a civilised continent with better food and wines instead the Euros that will be BBC by MC Crap. :p


France has less than 500 nukes, that's far less than enough to "kill the world 3 times."

The Korean War was a decisive victory for the US until China intervened - with numbers the EU does not have. We pushed them all the way to the Yalu.

Revisionisme and wishfull thinking :D

Who needs Aircraft Carriers?!? far too expensive. Did you know about the U220 (or U221. not sure)? Its a new H/K Sub the amis wanted the plans for desperatly. its so small and agile that it can kill all american subs classes without problems. ships too, so who needs carriers? and now start guessing who suffers the bigger loss when 1 carrier, or 10 of these subs are sunk.

You have seriously got to be kidding me . . . have you even read a book about modern naval combat? A CVBG is the pinnacle of modern weapons. It's as close to invulnerable as we can get nowadays.

I gots one word: Minutemen.


Wrong again, its got one word: Triomfant class :D wich will grill your ass.

Revisionisme and wishfull thinking :D
No. Revisionism is the belief that the NKs had America on the run, when in reality, we thought we had the war won by Christmas prior to Chinese intervention.

In fact we did. At points US troops could take a dip in the Yalu, the northern border of North Korea. But the Chinese did a huge horde attack against the US.

We were able to contain the Chinese, and we pushed our way back above the 38th parallel. We were on the way for another massive offensive, but we were able to negotiate a truce.

That is what occured.

Wrong again, its got one word: Triomfant class :D wich will grill your ass.

Ummm, how many of those do you have, because we got an awful lot of Minuteman III and Peacekeeper MX missiles. Not to mention the Strategic Command with it's long range bombers and subs.

You have seriously got to be kidding me . . . have you even read a book about modern naval combat? A CVBG is the pinnacle of modern weapons. It's as close to invulnerable as we can get nowadays.

And CVBG's also maintain Submarines and anti-submarine surface forces.

The dread enemy of the submarine is maintained in plenty on US CVBG, helicopters with dipping sonar. A sub cannot even damage one of these choppers, whilst these choppers can put torps and depth charges on subs.

Ummm, how many of those do you have, because we got an awful lot of Minuteman III and Peacekeeper MX missiles. Not to mention the Strategic Command with it's long range bombers and subs.

:D :D :D
You're fammily will be BBCd to :D , oh yeah, you believe in Star Wars :rolleyes:

Only France, without the UK friends and all those nuclear states wich can develop Nukes by the week, eat it:

Well I just "googled" a bit ... look here for more information :

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

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.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/brp/notices/004001630.shtml

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/dossier_international/nucleaire/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

Regards, anti EU losers.

France has less than 500 nukes, that's far less than enough to "kill the world 3 times."

Yeah, the theoretical global survival limit in a nuclear exchange is 1000 nukes detonated by each side. France has enough nukes to kill the world 1/4 of a time, lot's of people, but not three times.

Yeah, the theoretical global survival limit in a nuclear exchange is 1000 nukes detonated by each side. France has enough nukes to kill the world 1/4 of a time, lot's of people, but not three times.

Wrong, you have to count the warheads, not the nukes,still a 3 times planet kill :D

.. If the EU fights a traditional war, it won't stand a chance.
lets just Imagine that... :D

:D :D :D
:

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

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.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/brp/notices/004001630.shtml

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/dossier_international/nucleaire/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


Thanks for this first really informed post about the millitary in this topic. You're a rechearcher? In the millitary?

US wins Here is why

Navy: 12 CVNs, 9 Nimitz class, 1 Enterprise, 1 JFK, and 1 Kitty Hawk. vs. about 6-8 mini-carriers (including UK who is not EU). 2-3 US CVNs would beat the whole European Navy. Most of the EU carriers have only Harriers and not the faster and larger F/A-18Es and F-14Ds with the 115 nm range Phoenix missile combined with a superior AWACs ability and defense systems like Aegis. The UK Navy along with all of Europe is in sorry shape. They lack Aegis and real good sub fleets. The US has about 55 SSNs vs a combined 13 SSNs and about 30 SSKs, (easier to kill as they snorkel and are good targets for SSNs and P-3s or S-3s or even LAMPS IIIs)

AF: US has athe B-2, F-117, and F/A-22A Raptor, EU has no stealth fighters so the US takes out air defense and vital strategic points early on. Semi-stealth B-1B Lancers would reak havok on other systems in the EU. Once the F-16C Block 60 Wild Weasels break the air defense also, and paving the way for B-52s. The US would then use MOABs or Daisy Cutters to destroy the cities. US Naval blockades, subs, and aircraft can starve Europe of food and other supplies. Napalm can help destroy food centers in the EU.

Without ground troops, the US can force the EU into surrender.

:D :D :D
You're fammily will be BBCd to :D , oh yeah, you believe in Star Wars :rolleyes:

Only France, without the UK friends and all those nuclear states wich can develop Nukes by the week, eat it:

Well I just "googled" a bit ... look here for more information :

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

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.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/brp/notices/004001630.shtml

http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr/dossier_international/nucleaire/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

Regards, anti EU losers.

Let's pay attention to the US Submarine Arsenal, say, oh, the Ohio class submarines? Yes, we have 18, with 24 missile tubes apiece.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/ssbn-726.htm

Or how about the total US nuclear arsenal?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9708/26/nuclear.states/

Listen, France is no superpower. The US is the only nation with that distinction. The French arsenal is smaller than the US arsenal. By a lot.

Thanks for this first really informed post about the millitary in this topic. You're a rechearcher? In the millitary?


I'd suspect that someone with your style of name might tend to be somewhat...ah...biased, if you were to say someone of an opposing point of view was well informed, then that lends credibility, but patting someone on your own side on the back is just propaganda. Learn to spell.

Wrong, you have to count the warheads, not the nukes,still a 3 times planet kill :D

a nuke is a warhead. what are you talking about?

Firstly there would be no war between the US and EU, but if there was, each side has it's own pro's and con's:

Pros

US:
The United States possess the largest industrial capacity in the world, maybe a close second from China. The EU would never be able to get completly organized in time to have a major effect by the time the shooting started.

The United States is unified. Here in lies the secret to the power the US has. THe US would not have to worry about diffrent languages and borders and industry in diffrent nations, it's all American, so we have the ability to produce more faster, simply put.

US training of it's soldiers is phenominal. I doubt there are better trained Infantry soldier, basic soldiers, anywhere in the world. Also the US has very advanced equipment.

LCAC's: These hovercraft allow the US to land wherever it needs to whenever it wants. If i may point out a successful war, the Opium Wars where the British were able to land, take over what they needed, or get what they needed and leave. This would be the advantage the US has.

The US has some of the best soldiers in the world, best Airforce (in terms of reliable aircraft and ability to make more quickly) and a very powerful navy. I think there is a underestimation of the American's will to fight and win. And the US has very very good commanders who can lead thier troops.

EU:
The EU possess a huge numerical advantage over America, more then 300 million people.

If the EU could ever unite into a mirror of America (and don't kid yourself, where do you think they got the idea) then they would be a very real danger to American industry.

Less land to defend and knowing the land would give the European forces an advantage when defending because knowing what your enemy would have to do and knowing where to concentrate troops gives you a very powerful advantage.

Cons

US:
It seems that if a war isn't fought for the right reason then the American people won't want to stick it out till the job is done.

The Media would constantly put negative conitations on the War and would bad mouth everything from the soldiers to the president.

Much of the equipment is getting old and newer models such as the F-22 wouldn't be fully ready for a shooting war, further testing would be needed.

EU:
Let's be realistic, the European nations may act as one for a time, but too many differing opinions and varying opinions on how a war is supposed to be fought would hold them back.

The lack of a unified industrial base would severly hurt under prolonged US bombing. Language diffrences and old hatreds from the past would hamper nations abilities to work together.

They use American fighters so the US could know how to beat thier own stuff.
Overview:

The advantage lies with niether side. The US can strike wherever, whenever, (ie the Opium War where the Chinese outnumbered the British and the Brits still win because of naval supremacy). Each side would fight until they realized the futility of the war and decided to unite and aim thier efforts at killing terrorists and all nations whom harbor terrorists.

BTW, this has been a fair and unbiased tirade by a Bush supporter, that's right bitches we are intelligent.

The US is the only nation with that distinction. The French arsenal is smaller than the US arsenal. By a lot.

No doubt but you're still dead. OK you can blow the world up 10 times, them 3 times. Does this make you a better? NO

And lets not forget the better capacities of the LEO2 A6 (even the US wants to buy parts to upgrade the lesser Abrahams M1A2) and the better trained and armed more professional EU soldiers (they would deal easaly with Vietnam, Iraq aso.).

BTW , who wa the moron that said that France has a draft, really that Midwest ass has to come out of his cave. :p

Just been in France and spoke about it, if they want a draft, let it be a female draft of their gorgeous women, that is what they said. :)

In vino veritas

.... The French arsenal is smaller than the US arsenal. By a lot.Yes, But they got Enough Nukes to erase half of the US pop...and leave the other half in a radiation-famine hell.

US wins Here is why

Navy: 12 CVNs, 9 Nimitz class, 1 Enterprise, 1 JFK, and 1 Kitty Hawk. vs. about 6-8 mini-carriers (including UK who is not EU). 2-3 US CVNs would beat the whole European Navy. Most of the EU carriers have only Harriers and not the faster and larger F/A-18Es and F-14Ds with the 115 nm range Phoenix missile combined with a superior AWACs ability and defense systems like Aegis. The UK Navy along with all of Europe is in sorry shape. They lack Aegis and real good sub fleets. The US has about 55 SSNs vs a combined 13 SSNs and about 30 SSKs, (easier to kill as they snorkel and are good targets for SSNs and P-3s or S-3s or even LAMPS IIIs)

AF: US has athe B-2, F-117, and F/A-22A Raptor, EU has no stealth fighters so the US takes out air defense and vital strategic points early on. Semi-stealth B-1B Lancers would reak havok on other systems in the EU. Once the F-16C Block 60 Wild Weasels break the air defense also, and paving the way for B-52s. The US would then use MOABs or Daisy Cutters to destroy the cities. US Naval blockades, subs, and aircraft can starve Europe of food and other supplies. Napalm can help destroy food centers in the EU.

Without ground troops, the US can force the EU into surrender.


Anyone going to counter this?

Yes, But they got Enough Nukes to erase half of the US pop...and leave the other half in a radiation-famine hell.

No, 3 times the world, and that is witouth the radiation count that will kill Cheney when he gets out of his bunker.

and the better trained and armed more professional EU soldiers (they would deal easaly with Vietnam, Iraq aso.).

And what evidence do you have to support this? Please, I'd like to see some. Oh wait! We entered Vietnam because the French got KICKED OUT.

Anyone going to counter this?

Easy:


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

I'd suspect that someone with your style of name might tend to be somewhat...ah...biased.


Allways the same with you commies and anti right wing people :rolleyes:

a nuke is a warhead. what are you talking about?

A nuke has multiple warheads kiddo :rolleyes:

You're young aren't ya :)

Easy:


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

I can't read French and one of the rules here is no nuclear weapons. In a conventional war, the US wins, tell me why they would lose. As for the subs, there are what, 6 or 7 SSNs and each one of them is less than the Los Angeles class subs. I'd call them a strong Thresher to weak Sturgeon in ability. Now put in the Seawolf and Virginia and the French Navy is screwed. As for CVNs, the 2 carriers you have combined would not beat 1 Nimitz CVN let alone 12 CVNs.

To all people saying the UK wouldside with the US....
Are you completely retarded ? UK Is less than 20 miles from mainland Europe.
They would get invaded in the blink of an eye.
Also, America has enormous amounts of money spread all over european banks.
The accts would be frozen before the first bomb hits. And now i know osmeone will say we will just take it all before; wake up kiddo you cant just transfer trillions of dollars in minutes. You have to do things liek this in person, speaking to managers of various banks. It might work for 1% of assets but that is it>
Also europe does not depend on USm erchandise to stay afloat< the US however does>
Also where are you going to refuel your bombers ? It is not possible to fly from mainland US to europe, and then fly back. You would have to get fuel somewhere.
Large scale mid-air refueling like this would not be logicaly possible. And if you got US carriers in flyign range of the EU, then the EU would simply send a lot of power towards that small point and erase it. Trust me, warpower would be saved for this scenario. Missiles would also be shot at us carriers in vast amount, far too many for onboard systems + planes combined to intercept.
At the least, carriers from BOTH sides would go home crippled beyond flotation use.
Also, the the UK would never take side with the US for one main reason, a civil war would break out. Blair thought it was a good idea to side with Bush, the rest of the population did not.

The French are renowned for their ability to fight wars...

I can't read French and one of the rules here is no nuclear weapons. In a conventional war, the US wins, tell me why they would lose. As for the subs, there are what, 6 or 7 SSNs and each one of them is less than the Los Angeles class subs. I'd call them a strong Thresher to weak Sturgeon in ability. Now put in the Seawolf and Virginia and the French Navy is screwed. As for CVNs, the 2 carriers you have combined would not beat 1 Nimitz CVN let alone 12 CVNs.

They are right, you're wrong, read the thread, wich is way to long and ridiculous since we all know that the Us stand no chance, perhaps the better quality of EU troops can but this was good (altough the EU is even better equiped in the thread that forgets a lot of non called nuke subs and a lot of aircraft), but great to see a counterballance for your fantacies and wishfull anti EU dreams:


Well, let's think about this in the right way please, using our knowledge of each camp's assets and of strategies.

1. UK's position :

Indeed their is a strong chance for the UK to get on the US's side in a US-EU war. This would give the US a staging base for operations ( land or air ) against the the EU. But on the other hand the EU has an amphibious capacity strong enough to support an EU attack on UK which could be quite easily destroyed by the combined might of the french and german air forces and land forces while Gibraltar would fall to a Spanish assault force.

2. Atlantic front :

A most crucial place in a EU-US fight would be the Atlantic. The US have between 10 and 15 availlable CVBG ( such a fight would see the re-activation of old ships mothballed ) and about 50 nuclear subs hunting the seas. On the other side, the EU has : 1 CVBG ( France's Charles de Gaule ), 3 british ships ( if UK sides with EU ), 1 spanish small carrier, 1 italian small carrier, about 20 air defense ships ( be they the new dutch, or the new german, or the new spanish AEGIS ships or, if the conflict start in some year Horizon class french and italian ships ) and about 50 subs ( some 20 germans, half a dozen spanish, as much italians, and some 20 french including 5 strategic boomers ) most of the diesel. The italians and the greeks would be tied in the med, protecting the Suez canal. The Spanish would take care of the Azores and Gibraltar sector ( if the UK sides with the EU only subs would be needed for this later sector ). That would leave the French and the Germans for the atlantic front from Greenland to the iberian peninsula. One place would be of utmost importance : Iceland. With Iceland in EU hands ( which means putting the US forces always staying there out ) the EU can launch air operation against aproaching US CVBG with Tornado bombers, Eurofighter air cover and eventually Rafale with stealth cruise missiles ( who said ANS ? ). The diesel subs would then have to cover Iceland, Eire, the western UK coast and the most likely place of US amphibious assault in Europe ( In south west France I think due to infrastructure considerations : Nantes and Bordeau's ports would provide a nice opertating base for US land forces ).

3. The Mediterranean sea :

Once any US force in theater has been eliminated it would be quite, with only patrols to prevent any force to go through the Suez and Gibraltar. How would the elimination of US forces in theater be achieved ? Land based air campaign with naval submarine reconaissance would do the trick I think. The only problem that could arise would be Israel giving protection to US forces in theater...

4. US operations

Against such a Festung Europa ( with the UK either pro-EU or defeated ) the US would have to cross the Atlantic, passing by the Icelandic watchdog, then defeating advanced fortress Eire in order to be able to stage a more important amphibious assault. The constant bombing by EU airforces ( do not forget the EU now has Storm Shadow/Apache stealth cruise missiles for small planes like Rafale, Mirage, Eurofighter and Tornado ) would be a constant problem limiting the size of the US deployement in Eire to mainly air superiority fighter and medium range bombers.

On the strategic bombing side, B-52 raids with ALCM ( air lauched cruise missile, basically air launched Tomahawk ) would be quickly taken care of by fighters in Iceland or Eire, helped by the french special radar that uses the reflection of radar emissions on the atmosphere to see over the horizon. Submarine launched Tomahawc would have a better chance if they can get close enough from the coast to strike a deep inland target. Something quite hard to achieve since the diesel patrol sub would be close to undetectable in shalow waters and in the Biscay gulf, especialy now that they have the Air Independant Propulsion system.

In any case they would not be able to strike against German's factories, only against some french one that would be rebuild inland, maybe in Poland or Hungary... Thus it would only delay production of weapons like the Rafale and electronics system like the Thales ones. A delay that could be critical in a war of atrition. Or could not...

5. EU offensive operation

Outside of EU operations against a hostile UK, what would be the EU options ? The french sub carries no cruise missiles, even if Apache might be converted for a sub lauched version. The british subs have tomahawks, but now many are in stockpiles. Buy russian cruise missiles ? maybe, but not sure. So, what is still availlable to the EU ? Some highly psychological air raids using stealth planes and stealth cruise missiles ? range might not be enough. Commando raids on the coasts launched from subs ? the problem is that the Rubis class is not that big, not like the modified SSN-21 Seawolf ( SSN-23 if I remember well ), smaller than Los Angeles class too. So this must also be ruled out.

CONCLUSION :

After a bloody air and sea war that would mostly affect France, UK and USA the game would be a draw. The US Navy would be heavily damaged or on the bottom, the french air arm and industry damaged, UK ravaged either by the loss of the Royal Navy or by the invasion, and the game would be a drawn.

American stealth technology is nulified by British early warning systems as ultrasound is used instead of radar waves so that makes those big ass B-2s huge flying targets, and besides the technology is hardly fool proof, anyone remember the Serbs shooting down a F-117 with nothing better than Flak guns? A naval blockade will not defeat Europe as it can produce its own food and unless the US are going to invade bordering regions aswell, food could be imported aswell as other materials.
Who cares if you can destroy the world ten times and we can destroy it 3 times? Funnily enough there is only ONE WORLD TO DESTROY. Besides the US couldnt commit to a nuclear strike with its ground forces in the vacinity, so its likely that if the Americans managed to break past their landing sites that European nations would launch a nuclear counter strike on the US, knowledge of the destruction of their homeland would break the spirit of US troops and they would be defeated.
Yes America has the F-22, but currently there isnt even a single squadron of them. So you have to think of the F-15, F-16 and F-18 all of which are comparable to most planes operated in Europe, except the French Rafale and the limited numbers of Eurofighter Typhoons.

The EU have better troops? What is wrong with you?

A nuke has multiple warheads kiddo :rolleyes:

You're young aren't ya :)

A nuke is a single nuclear weapon.

Now if you are talking about a nuclear missile, with MIRVs, then it has multiple warheads. But I am using the term nuke as in a single warhead.

Then you misinterpreted what I said.

But the US would win because God is on their side, right? Unless of course American Fundamentalist Christians are lieing to me...they wouldn't do that..would they? :D

The French are renowned for their ability to fight wars...

That is true,so you also regarded the doc about WWI in wich they slaughtered Germany together with Uk and Belgium?

I think the part in wich the French had to train the US troops and protect them during their stay at the front was censured at FOX, but not at the BBC :eek: and other free nations televisions.

No, 3 times the world, and that is witouth the radiation count that will kill Cheney when he gets out of his bunker.I was asuming the US attacked France by surprise (with commandos et Al)...and took out most of the Silos/subs...(I know there is a lot of Dummies).

If the US actually "declares" war before sneaking behind France...then its Armagedon.

That is true, you also regarded the doc about WWI in wich they slaughtered Germany together with Uk and Belgium. I think the part in wich the Frebch had to train the uS troops and protect them during their stay at the front was cnsured at FOX, but not at the BBC :eek: and other free nations televisions.

That was almost 100 years ago chief. I do recall the heroic French defense of Paris when the Nazi's rolled in, oh wait... Oh! And the French fought so gallantly to maintain their colonies in Indochina... nevermind. Lets be serious here, continental Europe is basically pacifist, France didn't fight the Nazi's why would they fight the U.S? Europe didn't even defend itself from the Soviet Union. If the U.S. hadn't sheltered it, France wouldn't have to worry about 10% unemployment because the unemployed could just be sent to siberian labor camps.

The EU have better troops? What is wrong with you?better troops have nothing to do here....
Its about knowing where are the Dummies and where all the real French Nukes are...and even like that...all the EU radars need to be jammed at the sametime...and they all have to beleive its just acoincidence...for about 12 minutes.

Welcome to the ultimate survivor game "LOTO-NUKE"

Allways the same with you commies and anti right wing people :rolleyes:
So I'm a right wing nutjob because I support the US, but you and via Ferrata aren't because you're siding with France. Oh just great. I love you and your amazing capability to stereotype.

better troop have nothing to do here....Its about knowing where are the Dummies and where the real Nukes are...and even like that...all their radars need to be jammed at the sametime...and they have to beleive its just acoincidence...for about 12 minutes.

Welcome to the ultimate survivor game "LOTO-NUKE"

I think the scenario here is a conventional war. The whole thing is ludicrous anyway. The French and the Germans are worthless, I'd be more worried about the Polish. Switzerland does have weird compulsory military service thing, not that it is a real factor, I just think its interesting.

I was asuming the US attacked France by surprise (with commandos et Al)...and took out most of the Silos/subs...(I know there is a lot of Dummies)..

No doubt about that,but they've got those sneaky more modern, more silent and smaller "force de frappe" subs.


If the US actually "declares" war before sneaking behind France...then its Armagedon.

No doubt about that. Besides that, altough we will be destroyed by only France witouth its 24 allies, I do know that we will destroy them 10 times more then they will.

Ok we're still death but acording our president, we won :) (altough he will not survive us much longer and he won't enjoy his private Bordeaux much longer, pitty that he only drinks those great French and Italian wines in private)

American stealth technology is nulified by British early warning systems as ultrasound is used instead of radar waves so that makes those big ass B-2s huge flying targets.

could you please get me a link as to this system, I cannot seem to find it referenced on google or yahoo.

We don't need to invade Europe, they are perishing from increasing irrelevance.

We don't need to invade Europe, they are perishing from increasing irrelevance.

Can't agree more :) But we are the weak :(

Altough lefties like Andalusia don't like real Republicans, we still have to admit that they will any war. We are poor and we don't have the EU spirit to dy for our beliefs.

I'm not sure whats going on here (http://iloveamerica.splinder.com/1099483366#3298944), but this is hilarious.

So I'm a right wing nutjob because I support the US, ....
LOL...

Let me "support" the Flag for a second...

me: "Iraq is going to be piece of Cake"
me again: "Iraqis are going to greet us with flowers and candy"
...again: "China is going to take care of Nk for us"
...again: "France? we can take it over with the Boy scouts brigades"
...again: "French Nukes?...lets pretend they dont exist...and lets invade the EU"

:rolleyes:

I Wonder if some of you are going to become Army Generals

could you please get me a link as to this system, I cannot seem to find it referenced on google or yahoo.

Im not aware of it personally, but it was discussed either earlier in this thread or in another on here.

LOL...

Let me "support" the Flag for a second...

me: "Iraq is going to be pece of Cake"
me again "Iraqis are going to greet us with flowers and candy"
...again "China is going to take care of Nk for us"
...again "France? we can take it over with the Boy scouts brigades"
...again "French Nukes?...lets pretend they dont exist...and lets invade the EU"

:rolleyes:

Once again, its a hypothetical scenario in which nuclear weapons are excluded. Besides, half of them probably don't work anyway, I doubt they have been properly maintained.

I'm not sure whats going on here (http://iloveamerica.splinder.com/1099483366#3298944), but this is hilarious.

Great, who made it ? I hope they belong our real RIGHT party!!!

... Besides, half of them probably don't work anyway, I doubt they have been properly maintained.

mercy :headbang:

Quick google search has brought up alot of info on ant stealth radar systems. Certainly ones that detect gaps in the field caused by stealth aircraft.

I Wonder if some of you are going to become Army Generals

Sorry, you're smart, we know :rolleyes: ,but we rightist and would be rightists like Andalousia have the right to act stupid like the ignorant rightists we are :rolleyes:

A nuke is a single nuclear weapon.

Now if you are talking about a nuclear missile, with MIRVs, then it has multiple warheads. But I am using the term nuke as in a single warhead.

Then you misinterpreted what I said.

Indeed, I was talking about MIRV'S, glad you know the difference. :)

Can't agree more :) But we are the weak :(

Altough lefties like Andalusia don't like real Republicans, we still have to admit that they will any war. We are poor and we don't have the EU spirit to dy for our beliefs.


What the hell are you talking about? This doesn't even make sense? Poor grammar aside, "the EU spirit?" What the hell is that? The EU isn't even unified, much less possessing a single coherent value system or "spirit." I can't tell what exactly you are saying, but the U.S. is poor? Are you an idiot? We are the richest country in the world. France, Germany, and Spain all have unemployment around 10%. Thats insane! We are weak? It is established as fact that the United States has unprecedented economic, military and cultural dominance. The E.U. could never outproduce or outfight us despite its larger population. At this point most of the EU lacks the infrastructure for serious economic output, and the countries that have it are quite simply lazy. The only countries that have their shit together aren't on the continent. The E.U. isn't even a threat! For our new allies and enemys look to the east. World power will soon cease to be an Atlantic affair. America and Asia are the future. (Period emphasized).

But the US would win because God is on their side, right? Unless of course American Fundamentalist Christians are lieing to me...they wouldn't do that..would they? :D

No No, God is ALWAYS on the US side, Allah Akhbar and the SS "Gott Mit Uns" are telling the free EU democracies enough about those crazy Bush fucks.

Yeah, the SS and Himler to had the same "Gott mit uns-o, our side" crazy Bush thinking in Auschwitz to, we ll know untill the extreme right (weather you call it fascisme, nazisme, republicanisme Bush style, Franco, Pinochet aso.) leads us.

And we all know wich wars we have to fight to reinstall democracy in those regimes :rolleyes:

Once again, its a hypothetical scenario in which nuclear weapons are excluded.Wihtout the Nukes? :D
Dude...we can defeat France, the EU, China or Russia.
we can defeat them even if they allie against us.

No No, God is ALWAYS on the US side, Allah Akhbar and the SS "Gott Mit Uns" are telling the free EU democracies enough about those crazy Bush fucks.

Yeah, the SS and Himler to had the same "Gott mit uns-o, our side" crazy Bush thinking in Auschwitz to, we ll know untill the extreme right (weather you call it fascisme, nazisme, republicanisme Bush style, Franco, Pinochet aso.) leads us.

And we all know wich wars we have to fight to reinstall democracy in those regimes :rolleyes:


Ignorance never ceases to amaze. This analogy was never profound, and unlike good French wine, does not improve with age.

Whitout the Nukes? :D
Dude...we can defeat France, the EU, China or Russia.
we can defeat them even if they allie against us.

Thats the whole point.

I just love having sarcastic morons make fun of me. I'm off.

What the hell are you talking about? This doesn't even make sense? Poor grammar aside, "the EU spirit?" What the hell is that? The EU isn't even unified, much less possessing a single coherent value system or "spirit." I can't tell what exactly you are saying, but the U.S. is poor? Are you an idiot? We are the richest country in the world. France, Germany, and Spain all have unemployment around 10%. Thats insane! We are weak? It is established as fact that the United States has unprecedented economic, military and cultural dominance. The E.U. could never outproduce or outfight us despite its larger population. At this point most of the EU lacks the infrastructure for serious economic output, and the countries that have it are quite simply lazy. The only countries that have their shit together aren't on the continent. The E.U. isn't even a threat! For our new allies and enemys look to the east. World power will soon cease to be an Atlantic affair. America and Asia are the future. (Period emphasized).

What a joke you are: Asia-US future :p You really are a pre WWII american CRWN. I give you a compasionate smile for your crazy wishfull dreams.
The US, "a cultural, economical, millitary power?" :p Come on Charly Chaplin, you're alive, we all see your great jokes in your post :D

Economy, Well since a few weeks, the $ is monopoly money, world standard and oil price is in € now. Millitary power? thank's to the Britts, you are still in Iraq. Culture, You mean McDonalds, Or do you mean teh Louvre or Armani or Romanée Conti?

Nice to see that there are still really dumb US ers around (sorry Chris Liguiri from IBM NYC, but you'll agree on such fool)


"Poor grammar aside,"Yeah, your Dutch, french , German, Italian lately was even worse.

OK, I'm going to take an objective look at what each side has to offer. First, there is no chance of an EU invasion of America succeeding. Our Naval power is strong enough of a deterrent that, coupled with our control of the air, such an invasion would be equivalent to suicide. Not to mention that the US alone has a large enough population to match the EU. However, could a US invasion of the EU succeed?

First, lets look at France. Widely acknowledged as the most influential EU nation, it is safe to assume that they would emerge as the leading nation in the EU side of the conflict. However, that is assuming the UK sides with America. If the UK sides with the EU, then a US invasion could not succeed. English and French forces could control their waters effectively. Also, we would not have a close base of operations, which means that we would have an extensive supply line that would, in the end, show itself to be our greatest weakness. Now, if the UK sided with the US, then an entirely different scenario.

Assuming the UK sides with America, you would see a drastically different scenario. With a close base of operations from which to launch aircraft, the US/UK coalition could achieve air superiority. This accomplished, a ground invasion, coupled with air support, could be launched in France. Now, although the French are fairly powerful, without nuclear weaponry being tossed in the mix, there is no chance they could survive against a US/UK assault with adequate supplies and reinforcements located right across the channel. Despite German reinforcements, they would simply not have the manpower or technological advantages that the coalition forces would enjoy. A smaller population would also factor in, along with the economic damage that would surely ensue. Also, some of the most powerful nations in Europe aren't even members of the EU, such as Switzerland. The Netherlands could be effective, but unortunately there are too many powerful neutral nations that would not involve themselves in the conflict. Of course, this, again, assumes the UK sides with the US.


Thus, I make my prediction. Given a US/UK alliance, victory could be achieved. With the UK, no victor would emerge. Invasion would be unilaterally impossible due to the logistical impossibilities of such extensive supply lines.

Ignorance never ceases to amaze. This analogy was never profound, and unlike good French wine, does not improve with age.


Owww,the SS and fascist link hurts... :eek:

The US, "a cultural, economical, millitary power?" :p Come on Charly Chaplin, you're alive, we all see your great jokes in your post :D

Economy, Well since a few weeks, the $ is monopoly money, world standard and oil price is in € now. Millitary power? thank's to the Britts, you are still in Iraq. Culture, You mean McDonalds, Or do you mean teh Louvre or Armani or Romanée Conti?



Hmm. To quote a rather intelligent man, "Better that you should remove the log from your own eye before removing the twig from your brother's."

I believe, as to culture, I could perhaps toss in, oh, say, the Rolling Stones, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Edgar Allen Poe, Emily Dickinson, Henry David Thoreau, Robert Frost, T.S. Elliot, E.E. Cummings, Andy Warhol, Jackson Pollock, and the list goes on and on. Just because your nation has taken in the Mickey D's and skipped on the rest doesn't mean it isn't there. So perhaps you should open your eyes and let go of some of your ignorant suppositions.

OK, I'm going to take an objective look at what each side has to offer. First, there is no chance of an EU invasion of America succeeding. Our Naval power is strong enough of a deterrent that, coupled with our control of the air, such an invasion would be equivalent to suicide. Not to mention that the US alone has a large enough population to match the EU. However, could a US invasion of the EU succeed?

First, lets look at France. Widely acknowledged as the most influential EU nation, it is safe to assume that they would emerge as the leading nation in the EU side of the conflict. However, that is assuming the UK sides with America. If the UK sides with the EU, then a US invasion could not succeed. English and French forces could control their waters effectively. Also, we would not have a close base of operations, which means that we would have an extensive supply line that would, in the end, show itself to be our greatest weakness. Now, if the UK sided with the US, then an entirely different scenario.

Assuming the UK sides with America, you would see a drastically different scenario. With a close base of operations from which to launch aircraft, the US/UK coalition could achieve air superiority. This accomplished, a ground invasion, coupled with air support, could be launched in France. Now, although the French are fairly powerful, without nuclear weaponry being tossed in the mix, there is no chance they could survive against a US/UK assault with adequate supplies and reinforcements located right across the channel. Despite German reinforcements, they would simply not have the manpower or technological advantages that the coalition forces would enjoy. A smaller population would also factor in, along with the economic damage that would surely ensue. Also, some of the most powerful nations in Europe aren't even members of the EU, such as Switzerland. The Netherlands could be effective, but unortunately there are too many powerful neutral nations that would not involve themselves in the conflict. Of course, this, again, assumes the UK sides with the US.


Thus, I make my prediction. Given a US/UK alliance, victory could be achieved. With the UK, no victor would emerge. Invasion would be unilaterally impossible due to the logistical impossibilities of such extensive supply lines.

I completely agree with you, HadesRulesMuch, a US vs. EU conflict would depend entirely on which side of the fence the UK falls. If the UK sides with America, their combined might would be able to match the forces of France, Germany, Spain, Poland, and Italy, if not overcome them entirely. On the other hand, if the UK sides with the EU, the United States would not, on its own, defeat the European Union. If the UK stayed neutral, this conflict would turn into an ocean war. Without the UK, the EU cannot defeat the US Navy, but on the other hand the US cannot launch an effective invasion of Europe without British support.

In short, I completely agree with you, HadesRulesMuch. ^_^

Anyone going to counter this?

They won't be able to. You've hit the nail right on the head. There are far too many people here who just don't know what a CVBG (particulalry and American one) can do.

In fact, one can make a well informed claim about the quality of a nation's navy just by how many carriers it has.

The UK completly owned in the Falklands, they fought a war 5000km away from home (and from the nearest base), and won. Argentina was under a military dictatorship at the time, and being supplied by the US and the French. They had a good navy, and a solid airforce. The British, despite a few blunders or two, simply kicked ass.

Where do you get your information?!?

The British TRAINED for the Falklands in Maryland! American satellites were supplying the SAS and SBS with all the information they could want!

How on EARTH did the US supply the Argentines? If you mean in pre-conflict arms sales, sure. But not once even the HINT of conflict surfaced. The Reagan/Thatcher alliance was far to entrenched for that.

The Argentines may have had a good navy, but their airforce was strictly second rate. Almost all of their planes were destroyed on the ground by the Brits.

To all people saying the UK wouldside with the US....
Are you completely retarded ? UK Is less than 20 miles from mainland Europe.
They would get invaded in the blink of an eye.
Also, America has enormous amounts of money spread all over european banks.
The accts would be frozen before the first bomb hits. And now i know osmeone will say we will just take it all before; wake up kiddo you cant just transfer trillions of dollars in minutes. You have to do things liek this in person, speaking to managers of various banks. It might work for 1% of assets but that is it>
Also europe does not depend on USm erchandise to stay afloat< the US however does>
Also where are you going to refuel your bombers ? It is not possible to fly from mainland US to europe, and then fly back. You would have to get fuel somewhere.
Large scale mid-air refueling like this would not be logicaly possible. And if you got US carriers in flyign range of the EU, then the EU would simply send a lot of power towards that small point and erase it. Trust me, warpower would be saved for this scenario. Missiles would also be shot at us carriers in vast amount, far too many for onboard systems + planes combined to intercept.
At the least, carriers from BOTH sides would go home crippled beyond flotation use.
Also, the the UK would never take side with the US for one main reason, a civil war would break out. Blair thought it was a good idea to side with Bush, the rest of the population did not.

Yet amazingly, the UK hasn't been effectively invaded since 1066. Geography alone is not the only impediment, as 9/11 demonstrates.

Do you have any concept how much England, and Holland have invested in the US?!?

Actually, yet it is. The stealth bombers that hit Iraq flew out of Missouri. In air refuelling is not only doable, but likely to work. Who do you think owns the spy satellites that would track the planes? Hint: NOT the EU.

Civil War? Hardly. The UK is far closer to the US than any given European nation. All this anti-Bush rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric. Even when Bush VISITED England the protests were quite small: a mere 100,000. More peopel showed up to Live Aid in 1985.

Anyone going to counter this?What is the point?
Without Nukes...USA can defeat FR+EU+UK+everybody.

In a real-Life War vs France...the US bites the radioactive dust (just like France)

BTW ...How many nukes do you guys (Brits) have?

This is why France doesn't matter.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

This is why France doesn't matter.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

the first time it was funny...the 10th time it was kindaFunny...
now its ...old

Hopefully youll make the day for some n00b who sees it for the 1st time.

...thanks for playing either way.

All of you who argue that Europe has a chance against the US are grossly mistaken.
1. The US's military technology is VASTLY superior to European technology, because the Europeans have been consistently cutting the military budget in favor of social programs.
2. The US has an army that is simply better trained, better equipped, and more motivated.
3. I highly doubt Europe could unite.
4. The new US aerial stealth technology is far beyond European capabilities.
5. If the US did not concern itself so much with public relations, as it does in Iraq, and goes on a total war, would wipe out Europe.
People, put aside your ideoligies and look at the simple military facts.

the first time it was funny...the 10th time it was kindaFunny...
now its ...old

Hopefully youll make the day for some n00b who sees it for the 1st time.

...thanks for playing either way.

But no matter how often it has been repeated, it is still true. :)

On the issue of French nukes, I would say that the US does not only have more nukes, these nuclear weapons are much more powerful, precise, and fast. On the issue of British allies, I doubt they are necessary. First of all, the US has operational bases that are well supplied and in striking distance in Africa, Poland, and could establish them in Turkey and Japan. (Though that would require Russian cooperation.)

On the issue of French nukes, I would say that the US does not only have more nukes, these nuclear weapons are much more powerful, precise, and fast.
I see...

This is why France doesn't matter.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/text/france.html

thats where you find that document! Ive seen it before but i didnt know where.

All of you who argue that Europe has a chance against the US are grossly mistaken.
1. The US's military technology is VASTLY superior to European technology, because the Europeans have been consistently cutting the military budget in favor of social programs.
2. The US has an army that is simply better trained, better equipped, and more motivated.
3. I highly doubt Europe could unite.
4. The new US aerial stealth technology is far beyond European capabilities.
5. If the US did not concern itself so much with public relations, as it does in Iraq, and goes on a total war, would wipe out Europe.
People, put aside your ideoligies and look at the simple military facts.
1. Yes, that's why when at a air show when a Britsh built anti aircraft system tracked a 'stealth' plane the US were so upset. The French make some pretty godd weapons, the Euro fighter is not so bad, the Harrier is british (something the US could not make work properly). The list goes on.
2. This point is just rubbish, you want the best rained soldiers go to Britain, want the best special forces, go th Britain, why do you think when there was triky stuff to do in the mountains of Afganistan the US asked the British marines to do the business?
3. I agree here
4. See point one.
5. Yes when Europe is a nuclear waste and the US is, the US would be winners because they lived ten seconds longer than the Europeans.
Your highly trained soldiers and airmen killed more British in both gulf wars that the Iraqis! NUF SAID.