NationStates Jolt Archive

Canada!
Were bigger and were on top!
If this were prison you would be our bitch!

:rolleyes:

excellent, you learn fast.

Mutually Assured Destruction. That is all I have to say to that.

Honestly, I don't think the Americans would use nuclear weapons. Even if the Europeans did. The Europeans could blame the loss of the entire navy on a rogue submarine commander, and really, who would be the wiser? Maybe they would pay reparations, but the fact remains that the US would not nuke Europe, or 293 million people would soon be dead, on both sides.

You clearly have very little understanding of what exactly MAD is. Chances are, any situation that led to war between the United States and the EU would mean the moment an ICBM left the silo there would be a full strategic retaliation prepared and, providing the launcher couldn't be convinced to detonate it, launched before the missile hit.

Seriously, stop arguing. You know next to nothing about war in general. You demonstrate it with every post you make. In traditional war settings (army versus army, not the assymetric crap we put up with in Iraq and did in Vietnam), training, technology, and in-theater mobility trump numbers. The "home-field advantage" American troops in Iraq would have (since they were already there are defending) would have just adds to it. The fact that we would be close enough to the Gulf to be well within range of any carrier battlegroups who happened by while Europe wouldn't have any but the longest range bombers available to them means we have air superiority.

Any push into established American positions in the Middle East by anything but an equivilant military, training, resource, and technology wise would be relativily easily repulsed.

By the way, I'm fascinated by you. You don't know how often I see fools accuse people of hating America when they, in fact, only disagree with the Bush Administration (rightly so), but I've never actually met an American who geniunily hated America.

2. Okay untrained conscripted soldiers would stand no chance against a battle harded force such as ours, even if they are out numbered... Look at the 6-days war or yom kupper war..

3. A. you don't have the nukes B. once you use nukes(your few), we will launch our thousands and every inch of your landmass gone. not to mention its extremly hard to nuke a navhy and retool a warhead(retool means to retarget)... by the time you retool it too late its good.. they are moving targets.

4.A. your rails are gone. B. no neutral middle-eastern country will let you in C. your untrained soldiers will stand no chance against our veterns, plus if worse gets to worse israel would have our back not yours(you forget they are very closly allied with us)





The Israelis won because they had offensive weaponry, on the individual level though, the soldiers of the Egyptians and the Israelis were about equal in proficiency.

A nuclear missile can travel hundreds of miles in less than 15 minutes. I'm sure a sub commander can point a little bit ahead of a fleet that is 40 miles across.

The Europeans have more than enough nukes to assure that every square inch of America would be destroyed as well. Mutually Assured Destruction is guaranteed.

Rails aren't even that necessary. Hardened road networks are just as effective, and they are even more expansive. Not to mention, air strikes on air force bases will negate the ability to destroy any of these road networks.
It isn't like the middle eastern country has much of a choice. They don't have the military to stop an invasion such as that. And Israel is a tiny country, they aren't a major player in this battle at all.

Canada!
Were bigger and were on top!
If this were prison you would be our bitch!

Canada doesn't even have an army does it?

I lived with the US military for an entire year. My dad was in the Army. I haven't played any video games in a year and a half (since I threw out my television). I am just significantly more educated than you are. But hey, that's what a college education can do for you!

I've been around the military my whole life too. My father is in the US Air Force. I am significantly more educated than you are. But hey, that's what a college education can do for you.

Liverbreath']Hmmm, that's something to check into for me. I am really weak on Korea.

Seoul was attacked after all.

excellent, you learn fast.

go Study more history Hyridian. You might actually learn something.

so you pro-americans are saying that China, Europe and Russia would not win against USA, especially with their forces in afghanistan and iraq plus 500+ billion dollars defecits?? please excuse me while i laugh hilariously outside (goes outside) :D

You clearly have very little understanding of what exactly MAD is. Chances are, any situation that led to war between the United States and the EU would mean the moment an ICBM left the silo there would be a full strategic retaliation prepared and, providing the launcher couldn't be convinced to detonate it, launched before the missile hit.

Seriously, stop arguing. You know next to nothing about war in general. You demonstrate it with every post you make. In traditional war settings (army versus army, not the assymetric crap we put up with in Iraq and did in Vietnam), training, technology, and in-theater mobility trump numbers. The "home-field advantage" American troops in Iraq would have (since they were already there are defending) would have just adds to it. The fact that we would be close enough to the Gulf to be well within range of any carrier battlegroups who happened by while Europe wouldn't have any but the longest range bombers available to them means we have air superiority.

Any push into established American positions in the Middle East by anything but an equivilant military, training, resource, and technology wise would be relativily easily repulsed.

By the way, I'm fascinated by you. You don't know how often I see fools accuse people of hating America when they, in fact, only disagree with the Bush Administration (rightly so), but I've never actually met an American who geniunily hated America.

*Clap Clap Clap Clap CLAP!* That was beautiful *tear* :p

okay you don't understand logistics either: without even rail or shipping, have you tried to feed an entire army across a continent with just using roads? IT DOESN't work, we can bomb your roads too, and by the way if you had 100000000 conscipts with m16s and I had one Air craft carrier who would win? ME because I got a logitstal advantage, and reach... navies just don't attack navies a carrier group has reach, you can be off the Ibreian coast and bomb Paris and berlin with little or no intervention. also you don't reconize mechized warfair... It takes a lot fo training to properly use an A1M1 tank and small arms fire can't do anything too it(that includes RPGs my friend). and we used those "techonologies" in Iraq too and without it the war would'ev been longer... take a history course please... then read up on military theory...

Well actually we could leave the house from Kansas City after breakfast in the morning, bomb paris and be back home in time to read about it in the newspaper at the breakfast table the next morning.

Canada doesn't even have an army does it?

actually we do... but they are over in afghanistan cleaning the mess that the americans left

so you pro-americans are saying that China, Europe and Russia would not win against USA, especially with their forces in afghanistan and iraq plus 500+ billion dollars defecits?? please excuse me while i laugh hilariously outside (goes outside) :D

Yes but the situation has England on our side and they have the best army in Eurasia, besides the U.S n Iraq and Israel.

You clearly have very little understanding of what exactly MAD is. Chances are, any situation that led to war between the United States and the EU would mean the moment an ICBM left the silo there would be a full strategic retaliation prepared and, providing the launcher couldn't be convinced to detonate it, launched before the missile hit.

Seriously, stop arguing. You know next to nothing about war in general. You demonstrate it with every post you make. In traditional war settings (army versus army, not the assymetric crap we put up with in Iraq and did in Vietnam), training, technology, and in-theater mobility trump numbers. The "home-field advantage" American troops in Iraq would have (since they were already there are defending) would have just adds to it. The fact that we would be close enough to the Gulf to be well within range of any carrier battlegroups who happened by while Europe wouldn't have any but the longest range bombers available to them means we have air superiority.

Any push into established American positions in the Middle East by anything but an equivilant military, training, resource, and technology wise would be relativily easily repulsed.

By the way, I'm fascinated by you. You don't know how often I see fools accuse people of hating America when they, in fact, only disagree with the Bush Administration (rightly so), but I've never actually met an American who geniunily hated America.

Very well said my friend. Very well said indeed.

Liverbreath']Well actually we could leave the house from Kansas City after breakfast in the morning, bomb paris and be back home in time to read about it in the newspaper at the breakfast table the next morning.

Id like that if youre talking about Paris, France. :D :D :D

Yes but the situation has England on our side and they have the best army in Eurasia, besides the U.S n Iraq and Israel.

let me also point out that Britain also has a significant amount of forces in the middle east and that is still just a small variable. USA + Britain against WHOLE europe, Russia and China? (I leave outside for some more laughs)

Now this is utter crap! Here's a problem. We did it on both fronts. Notice that our Pacific offensive started in mid 1942! Tarawa followed by Guadalcanal. Then the island hopping campaign started. Hitler fell in 1945. A few months later, Japan fell. So much for being on the defensive till Germany fell. :rolleyes: Now think about this. We were bombing the hell out of Japan when we took Saipan. With what you might ask? B-29s. We fire bombed them to death. Then to add insult to injury, Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in a ball of fire (literally). Don't tell me we didn't wage total war dude. We sure as hell did fight total war. You guys didn't have it half as bad as the Pacific theater. At least the Germans surrendered. Try fighting an enemy that didn't believe in surrender! You want total war? Read up on the firebombings of Japan. It made what we did to Germany pale in comparison! It was probably worse because their houses were at all that well built.

My understanding was that while we did wage a total war on borth fronts, we had the majority of our resources in Europe at first so as to defeat the Nazi forces as soon as possible as they were considered the bigger threat. I'm not saying we started out not fighting Japan at all, because that's now how it went, but we did concentrate on beating Germany first.

~ Romandeos.

actually we do... but they are over in afghanistan cleaning the mess that the americans left

What mess? We left Afghanistan sparkling clean compared to what we could do to any of Canada's cities at any moment... I mean a country with a 2 man army couldn't fend off the strongest country in the world.

Seoul was attacked after all.

Well then if civilians were targeted that makes the case.

okay so your going to invade the Mid-east now? Well now you did something I would never think of happening... they are on our side now!!! along with israel.. So you invade turkey and they raise the flag.. so all the other arab countries see this as a threat and come to their aid, along with battle-harded us soldiers your getting nowwhere.... Also you spent what one year in college?... also its not a good college is it? huh? also having your father be in the military does not mean you know anything about it. okay... REAd a BOOk... or at least what history channel at least that will help!

So where are we? you have the arabs to the south, you have us on the ocean, whats left russia? okay, even if they join you how long will it take for them to fix their missles... Maybe And I say Maybe if you had 10 years to prepare (I.E. stock up on supplies like us) you would have a chance.... Also you obvosly know nothing of war because roads aren't good for supply lines.. They are used by civilians, they are proan to mistakes(your forgetting fuel, tires, broken radiator shit happens in war!!) logistics you are forgetting.. you forget all the US and britain does is fight wars(lol I know thats wrong but whatever) we have expeirnce you don't...

READ A BOOK!

My understanding was that while we did wage a total war on borth fronts, we had the majority of our resources in Europe at first so as to defeat the Nazi forces as soon as possible as they were considered the bigger threat. I'm not saying we started out not fighting Japan at all, because that's now how it went, but we did concentrate on beating Germany first.

~ Romandeos.

I wasn't disputing the fact that we had a Europe first policy. I was disputing the fact that the US didnt wage total war at all. We did wage total war as the history books (and all the history novels on both theaters) reported.

let me also point out that Britain also has a significant amount of forces in the middle east and that is still just a small variable. USA + Britain against WHOLE europe, Russia and China? (I leave outside for some more laughs)

Against WHOLE Europe... wow... half of Europe is 3rd world countries who dont even have armies. Im sooo scared. (Goes outside and laughs) ;)

actually we do... but they are over in afghanistan cleaning the mess that the americans left

Mess? Mess? My friend, the United States is attempting to hunt down terrorists, and to do that, we have to get a little messy, but we clean up the things we mess up every time, and we don't need help to do it.

Seriously, stop arguing. You know next to nothing about war in general. You demonstrate it with every post you make. In traditional war settings (army versus army, not the assymetric crap we put up with in Iraq and did in Vietnam), training, technology, and in-theater mobility trump numbers. The "home-field advantage" American troops in Iraq would have (since they were already there are defending) would have just adds to it. The fact that we would be close enough to the Gulf to be well within range of any carrier battlegroups who happened by while Europe wouldn't have any but the longest range bombers available to them means we have air superiority.


In field mobility is the largest advantage the Europeans have, and their training method is comparable to ours, not to mention their technology. And single-soldier artillery is more effective in Europe than in America. The Russian RPG program is vastly superior to that of our own, and the RPG-9 is the most effective weapon currently being used in Iraq (and it belongs to the insurgents). It is portable, accurate, fires a range of ordinance that is as versatile as all the weapons the Americans have for conventional use, and it can be carried by a single soldier.

These conscripted soldiers will inevitably be trained. Probably according to the same training program American troops use. It won't be like the Russian conscripts ("Grab that gun and point it at the German over there") during WWII.

And those carrier groups are the targets that I speak of in terms of submarine induced destruction. Without the carrier groups, the air superiority would inevitably belong to the EU


Any push into established American positions in the Middle East by anything but an equivilant military, training, resource, and technology wise would be relativily easily repulsed.

Which would be far more than available.



By the way, I'm fascinated by you. You don't know how often I see fools accuse people of hating America when they, in fact, only disagree with the Bush Administration (rightly so), but I've never actually met an American who geniunily hated America.


I'm a communist that doesn't hate the American citizen (very much anyway) but hates capitalism and the American way of life and government. Bush is a non-issue. I regard him similarly to how I do the democrats. No, I want revolution to overthrow the ruling bourgeoisie, those are the principle people whom I hate.

What mess? We left Afghanistan sparkling clean compared to what we could do to any of Canada's cities at any moment... I mean a country with a 2 man army couldn't fend off the strongest country in the world.

LOL ok there


You expect a country with a few million over 30 mill (about the amount that vote on american idol) to have a major army?

Yea we have a small army... but nothing like you say...


And leaving afghanistan clean? ha.....

I wasn't disputing the fact that we had a Europe first policy. I was disputing the fact that the US didnt wage total war at all. We did wage total war as the history books (and all the history novels on both theaters) reported.

I see. I was just voicing my opinion.

Mess? Mess? My friend, the United States is attempting to hunt down terrorists, and to do that, we have to get a little messy, but we clean up the things we mess up every time, and we don't need help to do it.

Ok then, i hope our government withdraws our troops from there so you guys can send whatever you have left to finish the cleanup.... maybe some more of your troops will be held back from home against their will for another year or so....

... and what is russia going to do lauch their one working ICBM at us? their missle force is in such disrepair even if they wanted to attack us, we would take them out first. Also why would russia nuke us over germany... and france fighting the US yeah that will last no longer than about a week....You would take the russian nukes first?

LOL ok there


You expect a country with a few million over 30 mill (about the amount that vote on american idol) to have a major army?

Yea we have a small army... but nothing like you say...


And leaving afghanistan clean? ha.....

I'd like to see Canada go in there at the head of a coalition and do it better, friend. Actually, I'd like to see the Canadian and American militaries square off.

Yea we have a small army... but nothing like you say...


I was exaggerating... its more like 500 people. About the size of the number of students who went to my middle school but im now in 9th grade so who cares :p

I've studied military history. Not to mention, Ive had one or two world History classes in my time.

Really now? So has every other graduate from high school.



The Japs found that out the hard way. Besides that, we didn't need to take every single island back from them. The Pacific Commanders recognized as such and thus developed the island hopping campaign. Quite ingenious actually. And it worked brilliantly too.

We didn't take every island because we couldn't. It simply be to coslty and time consuming.


History and politcs are my favorite subjects. Not to mention I'm majoring in both of them.

YOU CAN MAJOR IN POLITCS?! what is this world coming to...
When you say you majored in history and politics, Im assuming your a grown man. Your on a internet forum argueing about war. Get a life. dude.....



Not another ignorant person. :rolleyes: US SURE DID WAGE TOTALLY WAR. :rolleyes:

....................................................yah okay buddy.......







And was why they surrendered. Three days apart actually. Hiroshima on the 6th of August and Nagasaki on the 9th. Five days later, Emperor Hirohito himself issued the surrender order. Then a military coup was tried and it failed. On September 2, 1945, the formal surrender ceremony took place on the deck of the USS Missouri

Im so glad you were able to look that up. I feal i should add the reason for the coup: hirohito(sp?) wanted to surrender, others i the government didnt.


Was this supposed to be another insult?

yes actually.



Yes I have heard of it


We also bombed the crap out of every major Japanese City. That was worse because of the materials used in consrtuction of those buildings. Not to mention having 2 bombs dropped on your head does make Dresden look like a firecracker.


In your vast readings did you happen to come across anything that talked about the citys of Germany? Read harder next time.



Your post is utter crap. I have several books on World War Two, not to mention an entire encyclopedia set as well as a 5 disc DVD documentary. World War TWO was total War and the US waged it as well. I suggest you go back to studying history because apparently, you didn't get it.

Well good for you, try reading those books and encyclopedias as they will help my arguement.

Are you saying because the US was in WW2 the war was considered to be a world war? so by your reasoning than means Iraq was like WW8 or something?

I will let you know I am 16. I am enjoying argueing with you dude.

It is nearing midnight. I will return tomarrow to see what crap you can pull out of my posts. ttyl dude....

In field mobility is the largest advantage the Europeans have, and their training method is comparable to ours, not to mention their technology. And single-soldier artillery is more effective in Europe than in America. The Russian RPG program is vastly superior to that of our own, and the RPG-9 is the most effective weapon currently being used in Iraq (and it belongs to the insurgents). It is portable, accurate, fires a range of ordinance that is as versatile as all the weapons the Americans have for conventional use, and it can be carried by a single soldier.

And how long was your father in the service and how long have you been in school? Please. Europe doesn't have the same specific level of training as the US does. Their mobility isn't at all functional, especially after the roads and rail systems get totally screwed by the bombers. As for the RPG, you know we are coming up with countermeasures for that too right?

These conscripted soldiers will inevitably be trained. Probably according to the same training program American troops use. It won't be like the Russian conscripts ("Grab that gun and point it at the German over there") during WWII.

We had experience with conscripted soldiers before. It doesn't work. Odds are, they'll run after the first few bombs fall into their ranks. The European Army won't be able to move due to the level of survaliance. The US and British would destroy anything that moves on the ground once air superiority is established.

And those carrier groups are the targets that I speak of in terms of submarine induced destruction. Without the carrier groups, the air superiority would inevitably belong to the EU

Why are you still discounting out the subs of the US and Britain?

Which would be far more than available.

Don't ever piss the Turks off.

I see. I was just voicing my opinion.

For which I'm grateful. Your opinion is more informative than half the stuff I've been hearing in this thread. Thank you for helping me keep my sanity.

I'd like to see Canada go in there at the head of a coalition and do it better, friend. Actually, I'd like to see the Canadian and American militaries square off.

please stop calling me friend lol :sniper: :p

And honestly... you wont see canada leading a war anytime soon.... because even if we wanted to our country isnt big enough.... im not going to lie about that.

And about our two sides fighting... i couldnt care less lol
No matter what government is in charge at the end.... we still get screwed one way or another.

let me also point out that Britain also has a significant amount of forces in the middle east and that is still just a small variable. USA + Britain against WHOLE europe, Russia and China? (I leave outside for some more laughs)

Russia and China will be as helpful to Europe as Japan was to Germany. China can't do squat except invade its nearest neighbors and Russia's military is as rusty as a garden rake left outside for 15 years. That just leaves Europe vs. US/UK/ect.

Anglo-American Advantages
-Superior Navy
-Larger Air Force
-Unsinkable Launch Platform onto Europe
-Majority of industry (America) and raw materials (Canada) safe from bombing attempts
-Battle Experience

EU Advantages
-Larger Population
-Ummmm....give me a minute here.... :D

The Anglo-Americans will have control of the ME, thanks to bases already availible in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with Israel on their side to smack around any uppity Arabs; with a strangle hold on the sea lanes and ability to cut the oil line anywhere between there and Europe, you'll find it will be the EU that's starving for some black gold.

I'm a communist that doesn't hate the American citizen (very much anyway) but hates capitalism and the American way of life and government. Bush is a non-issue. I regard him similarly to how I do the democrats. No, I want revolution to overthrow the ruling bourgeoisie, those are the principle people whom I hate.

wow someone picked up Socialist worker huh? Okay the RPG9 cannot penetrate a A1M1 tank armour, (or centurion for the brits), also where are you getting these subs? huh? where? also when are you getting the time to train your soldierrs?

heres how it works in real life my friend, there is this thing called time. now if had a war on the E.U. they wouldn't have the TIME to train an army or build a navy or anything, and nukes take a while to make too!!

oh yeah you do know communism doesn't work? So lets me guess:: your a first year college student who found out about communism or something? you political thoughts are your right to have so I will stop on this line....

But your military theories are flawed it is obvious that you know nothing on that subject... please read a book on the matter, or join the army and learn something first hand.... (also I believe the only reason your defending the E.U. to this extent is because its against the US and you obvously have problems with the US you are biased)

Sorry if you took offense

I was exaggerating... its more like 500 people. About the size of the number of students who went to my middle school but im now in 9th grade so who cares :p

Oh so the 100k soldiers that are aparently in the base by my house are actually puppets? :p


oh... and im in grade 11.... and canada doesnt have middle school... straight from elementary to high...

Oh so the 100k soldiers that are aparently in the base by my house are actually puppets? :p


oh... and im in grade 11.... and canada doesnt have middle school... straight from elementary to high...

Yes they are puppets.

My understanding was that while we did wage a total war on borth fronts, we had the majority of our resources in Europe at first so as to defeat the Nazi forces as soon as possible as they were considered the bigger threat. I'm not saying we started out not fighting Japan at all, because that's now how it went, but we did concentrate on beating Germany first.

~ Romandeos.
They were the bigger threat to our allies without a doubt. The russians were supposed to enter the war with japan immediately but Stalin lied. (imagine that)
Anyway, the time table didn't work out as they thought it would and public sentiment didn't allow for holding back, which is why the token bombing of Tokyo. If I recall correctly there was a great deal of urgency also in preventing Austraila from being invaded. We were actually so fully engaged in the South Pacific that units scheduled to go directly to the Pacific came home instead.

please stop calling me friend lol :sniper: :p

And honestly... you wont see canada leading a war anytime soon.... because even if we wanted to our country isnt big enough.... im not going to lie about that.

And about our two sides fighting... i couldnt care less lol
No matter what government is in charge at the end.... we still get screwed one way or another.

I'm calling you 'friend' in an attempt to be as respectful as possible, because that it is how I was raised. I'm glad to see you're big enough to admit Canada is not big enough to lead a war like what we're doing. I ask only that you not insult our troops and what they are doing, like saying we're leaving messes behind us or stuff like that.

Yes they are puppets.
yeah its a massive conspiracy the entire canadian army is all pupets we don't know why though all I know is that it involves cheese!

let me also point out that Britain also has a significant amount of forces in the middle east and that is still just a small variable. USA + Britain against WHOLE europe, Russia and China? (I leave outside for some more laughs)

Oh wait, this is Russia and China, too?

Well, Russia and China would never fight the US. At the moment, any war larger than the glorified police action in Chechnya would collapse the Russian economy.

China wouldn't risk losing the American consumer market.

However, let's say that China and America had already drifted away from each other as mutual trading partners without any majorly adverse effects on their respective economies.

Now what do we have? A country with a several million man army and no force projection abilities whatsoever?

Ok then, i hope our government withdraws our troops from there so you guys can send whatever you have left to finish the cleanup.... maybe some more of your troops will be held back from home against their will for another year or so....


Our troops are not conscripts. They sign an enlisting contract which specifies there duties. They know what they are getting into when the sign. If they dont care to read the fine print then thats there problem. I knew what I was getting in for. I actually ended up in a shooting war. Scared yes, but it was what I signed up for.

I've been around the military my whole life too. My father is in the US Air Force. I am significantly more educated than you are. But hey, that's what a college education can do for you.


And my family currently work for the Air Force...In Europe! It helps to see things up close to understand the effectiveness. And how accredited is your school? I was schooled at the University of Washington, one of the best schools in the country. Not that that would matter though. You still defend a point that is failing, and failing fast. Europeans would win. That isn't a matter of personal opinion. I'm not picking sides. They would win. Don't reinforce a point just because you have a personal preference for it. You aren't trying to convince me that America is better. Only that it will win. And you can't do that.

Yes they are puppets.


Well if there is anything our army can be proud of, its the quality of their training....

Infact i see troops coming up from the states all the time for training....


Oh... and our airforce isnt that bad either.... you just dont hear about our planes that much because they dont travel over to where our troops are... no aircraft carriers lol

Ill be one of the first to admit... our government has totally screwed over our military... about 10-20 years ago we had a pretty good army... and great ships/weaponry..... but then they sold it off and got used crap :headbang:

Really now? So has every other graduate from high school.

And most college students! Something I am thinking that you are not.


We didn't take every island because we couldn't. It simply be to coslty and time consuming.

Not to mention it wasn't necessary. We knew the strategic islands to take and we took them. It was one hell of a bloody fight but we did take those islands and then subequently hit the mainland of Japan with everything we had including the kitchen sink. I thank God we didn't have to invade it. The Casualties would make Vietnam look like a church picnick.

YOU CAN MAJOR IN POLITCS?! what is this world coming to...
When you say you majored in history and politics, Im assuming your a grown man. Your on a internet forum argueing about war. Get a life. dude.....

Actually I said the word MAJORING, not majored. I'm actually going to be a senior at the university I attend. And talking about getting a life, your arguing about a war yourself. Get a life dude.

Well good for you, try reading those books and encyclopedias as they will help my arguement.

I've read the encyclopedias and books. Are you still disputing the fact that the US waged total war in both theaters? We did wage total war in both theaters.

Are you saying because the US was in WW2 the war was considered to be a world war? so by your reasoning than means Iraq was like WW8 or something?

Dude, its been a world war when the British Commonwealth declared war on Germany. The British Commonwealth, you might remember includes Canada.

I will let you know I am 16. I am enjoying argueing with you dude.

I was right. You aren't that well educated. Are you going to a public school? That'll explain why you don't understand that World War 2 was a total war.

It is nearing midnight. I will return tomarrow to see what crap you can pull out of my posts. ttyl dude....

Its nearing midnight here too. Appparently we're in the same timezone. I can't wait to see what utter nonsense you'll be spouting next.

Yes they are puppets.

100k at one base? You better go check your attendance sheet and see if someone didn't sign in as Conan the Barbarian or Donald Duck.

I'm calling you 'friend' in an attempt to be as respectful as possible, because that it is how I was raised. I'm glad to see you're big enough to admit Canada is not big enough to lead a war like what we're doing. I ask only that you not insult our troops and what they are doing, like saying we're leaving messes behind us or stuff like that.

oh im not insulting your troops.... you took it the wrong way...

Im insulting the government for withdrawing the greater portion of the troops before they could finish what they were sent there to do.... thus leaving a mess.

Liverbreath']100k at one base? You better go check your attendance sheet and see if someone didn't sign in as Conan the Barbarian or Donald Duck.

I think 100k puppets could fit in one military base, not soldiers of course but definately puppets!! :p :D :p

And my family currently work for the Air Force...In Europe! It helps to see things up close to understand the effectiveness. And how accredited is your school? I was schooled at the University of Washington, one of the best schools in the country. Not that that would matter though. You still defend a point that is failing, and failing fast. Europeans would win. That isn't a matter of personal opinion. I'm not picking sides. They would win. Don't reinforce a point just because you have a personal preference for it. You aren't trying to convince me that America is better. Only that it will win. And you can't do that.
ahh you just gave us another good point... I tottaly forgot!! We already have armed forced in Europe!! All we need to do is reinforce them!!!

Your arguments are false! please just prove one of them, if you are educated do it!

(also U. of washinton one of the best? you gotta be kidding me? I go to brown.........probably can't tell from my spelling though lol)

Both the American M1A1 and the British Challenger are fitted with the best in armor technology: Chobham armor. It's exat making are a secret, but it has been known to take direct RPG hits and come out undamaged.

Well if there is anything our army can be proud of, its the quality of their training....

Infact i see troops coming up from the states all the time for training....


Oh... and our airforce isnt that bad either.... you just dont hear about our planes that much because they dont travel over to where our troops are... no aircraft carriers lol

Ill be one of the first to admit... our government has totally screwed over our military... about 10-20 years ago we had a pretty good army... and great ships/weaponry..... but then they sold it off and got used crap :headbang:

Then what would you attribute so many Canadians joining the US Army to? I am just curious, I had several guys from Canada in my unit.

neways... i gotta get to sleep... was nice talking about how big our armies are


Lol i hope your egos are satisfied for tonight ;) :p

oh im not insulting your troops.... you took it the wrong way...

Im insulting the government for withdrawing the greater portion of the troops before they could finish what they were sent there to do.... thus leaving a mess.

Maybe we're not just pulling out. Maybe we're wanting the locals to defend themselves, so we're pulling out most of our troops and leaving a small force behind, just in case.

And my family currently work for the Air Force...In Europe! It helps to see things up close to understand the effectiveness. And how accredited is your school? I was schooled at the University of Washington, one of the best schools in the country. Not that that would matter though. You still defend a point that is failing, and failing fast. Europeans would win. That isn't a matter of personal opinion. I'm not picking sides. They would win. Don't reinforce a point just because you have a personal preference for it. You aren't trying to convince me that America is better. Only that it will win. And you can't do that.

I actually happen to live maybe 5 min from the U of Washington. Can tell you that most of you fools that go there are liberal hacks. No doubt you think the Europeans would win. U of Washington is great for medical fields. Not military fields.

I actually happen to live maybe 5 min from the U of Washington. Can tell you that most of you fools that go there are liberal hacks. No doubt you think the Europeans would win. U of Washington is great for medical fields. Not military fields.

Exactly *clap* *clap* :D :cool:

And my family currently work for the Air Force...In Europe! It helps to see things up close to understand the effectiveness. And how accredited is your school?

Most of my family served in one branch or another. Where in Europe precisely do they work. I'm going to assume either Britain, Italy, or Germany. As for my school it is one of the best in the country.

I was schooled at the University of Washington, one of the best schools in the country. Not that that would matter though. You still defend a point that is failing, and failing fast.

As opposed to you not knowing anything about military tactics? I think we've rammed this home to many times for this to matter. One thing I have learned is that history repeats itself. However, your not taking into account the whole picture. Your assuming something that isn't there and ignoring huge factors that'll have an impact on a war.

Europeans would win. That isn't a matter of personal opinion. I'm not picking sides. They would win. Don't reinforce a point just because you have a personal preference for it. You aren't trying to convince me that America is better. Only that it will win. And you can't do that.

I'm not assuming anything here. However, I'm taking in our allies Britain and Canada. They'll have a big impact as well to the outcome of this war. Apparently you are ignoring them because all I've seen you post is that the US navy will get nuked (not bloody likely) and that our army will be smashed (again not bloody likely). You have no sense of history, no sense of strategy, and no sense of the military either.

Okay here is how the battle is looking to me:

We have military bases already in europe


First attack, we destroy their infrastructure (rail, road, shipping lanes, etc), and all their nuclear facilities with strategic bombing.

By the time european forces become organized we would'ev landed forces in western europe and wouldn'ev destroyed your navy

You would try to stop us by taking the oil supply in the mid-east, just giving more nations to our cause, so now you have the arab-anglo-american alliance from the south

You start training massive amounts of soldiers, but yet while your doing so our battle-harded army will take your capitals

Russia wouldn't join you, their economy is too weak,

Maybe china will join you(but they wouldn't risk losing the US as a trading partner) but they have a large army and no way of using it... how are they getting it there? mind you they have no suffiecient navy(if they did taiwan would be toast), all all other lines of transportation would be dead..

so europe has no lines of supply and a lack of trained soldiers so how please tell can they win?

(US has the strongest military in the world, followed by china(non-factor), then britain) Europe would have to rebuild its military while ours would already be ready....

Well if there is anything our army can be proud of, its the quality of their training....

Infact i see troops coming up from the states all the time for training....

I won't mock your training standards, but when we send troops over to other nations for training, it's more of an exchange: "We train your troops in certain things, you train our troops in certain other things."

We do that with many countries. It's how our troops are skilled in so many different kinds of fighting, etc...

ahh you just gave us another good point... I tottaly forgot!! We already have armed forced in Europe!! All we need to do is reinforce them!!!

Your arguments are false! please just prove one of them, if you are educated do it!

(also U. of washinton one of the best? you gotta be kidding me? I go to brown.........probably can't tell from my spelling though lol)

Apparently, I'm getting a better education at a division II sports school than a Division I sports school. :D

I actually happen to live maybe 5 min from the U of Washington. Can tell you that most of you fools that go there are liberal hacks. No doubt you think the Europeans would win. U of Washington is great for medical fields. Not military fields.

Here here Marrakech. Nicely said. I commend you.

*pins a commanders commendation medal on you*

Apparently, I'm getting a better education at a division II sports school than a Division I sports school. :D

lol me grammerest taughation reel wellest in N.E. schoolness....

I think 100k puppets could fit in one military base, not soldiers of course but definately puppets!! :p :D :p

hahaha

This arguement is becoming so one-sided that its getting hard to find any good points to argue. SO I guess it looks like were right! USA, Canada + Britain would mop the floor. The End.

lol me grammerest taughation reel wellest in N.E. schoolness....

I don't care. I understand you perfectly well. To bad that Stop Banning Me Mods can't figure out military tactics. He'll learn one of these days.

Hell, the person that I've been argueing with (and I'm not talking about SBMM) needs to grow up some and study more history.

Anyway, on that note, Im off to bed myself. Its *gasp* 1209 here on the East Coast. Good night everyone.

This arguement is becoming so one-sided that its getting hard to find any good points to argue. SO I guess it looks like were right! USA, Canada + Britain would mop the floor. The End.

Indeed.

I don't care. I understand you perfectly well. To bad that Stop Banning Me Mods can't figure out military tactics. He'll learn one of these days.

Hell, the person that I've been argueing with (and I'm not talking about SBMM) needs to grow up some and study more history.

Anyway, on that note, Im off to bed myself. Its *gasp* 1209 here on the East Coast. Good night everyone.


good point

wow someone picked up Socialist worker huh? Okay the RPG9 cannot penetrate a A1M1 tank armour, (or centurion for the brits), also where are you getting these subs? huh? where? also when are you getting the time to train your soldierrs?

heres how it works in real life my friend, there is this thing called time. now if had a war on the E.U. they wouldn't have the TIME to train an army or build a navy or anything, and nukes take a while to make too!!

oh yeah you do know communism doesn't work? So lets me guess:: your a first year college student who found out about communism or something? you political thoughts are your right to have so I will stop on this line....

But your military theories are flawed it is obvious that you know nothing on that subject... please read a book on the matter, or join the army and learn something first hand.... (also I believe the only reason your defending the E.U. to this extent is because its against the US and you obvously have problems with the US you are biased)

Sorry if you took offense



I didn't. I've been a communist for years. And fought long and hard proving to myslef and others that it, in fact, does work. I have an explanation for it in my signature, from a political science perspective anyway.

I'm not biased, if I thought Che Guevara was an idiot I would say so. I make it a point to be as objective as I can. And the facts remain that mobilization is one of the most important aspects of any war. It isn't like this war would happen immediately either. Preparation and mobilization would occur on both sides, not to mention minor skirmishes that would seek to derail the US's position of power in Eurasia.

I am aware of the difficulty of building a military arsenal, but these European countries have such an arsenal in place that submarine attack and nuclear intervention would be viable options. It isn't as if these weapons don't yet exist. They are there, just in small numbers. But while there are few, they are enough to be used offensively, and submarine warfare sits very strongly on the side of the aggressor (in this case Europe). At 2,000 feet, sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the submarine is virtually undetectable, and with a nuclear arsenal (along with warheads that fragment upon entry) it is very difficult to shoot down one of these missiles. The nuclear defense shield isn't strong enough to take down nukes. They've tested our Anti-ballistic missiles, and proven them ineffective for use against missiles travelling through the atmosphere at mach 2. They tend to miss.

And even if the RPG-9 can't penetrate American armor, the RPG 29 was designed to do just that. The RPG-9 has inflicted most of the casualties that Americans have currently seen, be it through fragmentation grenades, Thermobaric grenades, or the regular old HE grenades that the Iraqis have access to.



And I hear people talking about the vulnerability of a massive road and rail network and I have to ask "what the fuck are you smoking, and is it Oregon weed?" because a road network designed to handle commercial and residential transportation between 350 million people can't be effectively bombed to oblivion. If you were lucky, you could destroy maybe 10% of the road network coming into the major theaters of combat, but no more than that.

And even if the RPG-9 can't penetrate American armor, the RPG 29 was designed to do just that. The RPG-9 has inflicted most of the casualties that Americans have currently seen, be it through fragmentation grenades, Thermobaric grenades, or the regular old HE grenades that the Iraqis have access to.



And I hear people talking about the vulnerability of a massive road and rail network and I have to ask "what the fuck are you smoking, and is it Oregon weed?" because a road network designed to handle commercial and residential transportation between 350 million people can't be effectively bombed to oblivion. If you were lucky, you could destroy maybe 10% of the road network coming into the major theaters of combat, but no more than that.

okay your missing the point in startigic warfar... All you need to do is destroy 10% (espcially the bridges). If your army can't move they are dead and with 10% taken out they can't effectivly move in combat. You have to remember speed is everything, you can't spend an extra day look for a way across a river. (same goes for rail), Also the only EU nation that has nukes is France(and very very small amount) also they don't have any submarine launchable missles. MAybe the EU could hold out in a guerilla warfar but they don't have the political will, most likely they will surrender. It all depend upon logistics in war, if you can't feed or arm your army they are dead, no matter how large a force they are, and if they are larger the harder it is..... you see your point is flawed don't you?


oh and i don't care that your a communist, really I don't, but you said overthrow the Gov? Try it and see what happens? what do you want us to have a stalin dictatorship? or what? remember those freedoms your using to admonish our system are what makes this country great(sounding familiar from somewhere)

I personally consider Communism evil, and that's all I want to say on the subject.

Who would win this war?

Asia.

And I'll tell you why.

The Anglophonic Nations (for want of a better catch-all) and the EU are very closely matched in terms of tactics, military equipment, numbers etc. While one side would get an advantage in one area, the other would gain an advantage elsewhere. Meanwhile, resources and economic might on both sides would become highly depleted.

And that's where the Far East comes in. Taking advantage of the situation, companies in Japan, China etc. begin gaining footholds elsewhere in the world. By the end of the war, the West is completely shagged economically, and who'll help them back on their feet?

Bingo.

I am aware of the difficulty of building a military arsenal, but these European countries have such an arsenal in place that submarine attack and nuclear intervention would be viable options. It isn't as if these weapons don't yet exist. They are there, just in small numbers.
And that's the point we're making. Europe already starts off at a disadvantage in the numbers area, hasn't had to fight any major offenses in the last sixty decades, and rapid industrialization just isn't all that possible. Meanwhile as you try and build up your forces the Anglo-Americans will be attacking your countries and you'll be taking loses both in factories and combat-capable aircraft, vehicles, ect.

But while there are few, they are enough to be used offensively, and submarine warfare sits very strongly on the side of the aggressor (in this case Europe). At 2,000 feet, sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the submarine is virtually undetectable, and with a nuclear arsenal (along with warheads that fragment upon entry) it is very difficult to shoot down one of these missiles. The nuclear defense shield isn't strong enough to take down nukes. They've tested our Anti-ballistic missiles, and proven them ineffective for use against missiles travelling through the atmosphere at mach 2. They tend to miss.
That's the thing with you Euro debaters, you constantly forget that the Anglo-Americans would have several times more subs then you, with better detection capabilities then yours, actively hunting for your SSBNs along with overwhelming numbers of ASW ships and aircraft. Not to mention destroying any of your subs while they're still at the pen, either through sabotage or air strikes.

And even if the RPG-9 can't penetrate American armor, the RPG 29 was designed to do just that. The RPG-9 has inflicted most of the casualties that Americans have currently seen, be it through fragmentation grenades, Thermobaric grenades, or the regular old HE grenades that the Iraqis have access to.
The English are currently developing an electrical armor plating system that would completely defeat conventional RPGs and be light enough to fit onto even a Hummer.

And I hear people talking about the vulnerability of a massive road and rail network and I have to ask "what the fuck are you smoking, and is it Oregon weed?" because a road network designed to handle commercial and residential transportation between 350 million people can't be effectively bombed to oblivion. If you were lucky, you could destroy maybe 10% of the road network coming into the major theaters of combat, but no more than that.
But that network doesn't have to deal with an active campaign to disable its capabilities. It takes time to repair a road or railway just from natural forces, not to mention weapons designed specifically to render concrete and rail into scrape. You can't just transport a whole army along a single roadway, supplies and all, in any meaningful time and not expect to be attacked by eager fighter-bombers.

Id like that if youre talking about Paris, France. :D :D :D

Yep, Paris France is a piece of cake. They proved they could do it in Iraq just so they could tell the President they didn't need a staging area on another nations soil. The B-2 is a very evil machine. Makes for a whole new set of potiential mental heath issues! hahhhahahha

Most of my family served in one branch or another. Where in Europe precisely do they work. I'm going to assume either Britain, Italy, or Germany. As for my school it is one of the best in the country.



As opposed to you not knowing anything about military tactics? I think we've rammed this home to many times for this to matter. One thing I have learned is that history repeats itself. However, your not taking into account the whole picture. Your assuming something that isn't there and ignoring huge factors that'll have an impact on a war.



I'm not assuming anything here. However, I'm taking in our allies Britain and Canada. They'll have a big impact as well to the outcome of this war. Apparently you are ignoring them because all I've seen you post is that the US navy will get nuked (not bloody likely) and that our army will be smashed (again not bloody likely). You have no sense of history, no sense of strategy, and no sense of the military either.



I don't see you making any remarks about military tactics, or any of you for that matter. I have studied military history (as every revolutionary ought to do) and even with our modernity, war is not a surprise party that you have to overwhelm the world. War abides by the exact same rules it has for hundreds of years. Technology cannot reinvent warfare. It can only make traditional warfare work on a larger and faster scale.

No military historian would pit an island nation that has a smaller population against a single landmass that has comparable technology, I mean, wasn't that the reason that the Japanese lost (I know, aside from their less effective weapons, and defeatist mentality)? Think of the US in this conflict as like a militarily superior Japan. Logistically, they are still disadvantaged. They need to rely on resources that aren't available at home, making them susceptible to blockade, as well as a naval transportation system, making them susceptible to all those nasty little submarines scooting around the ocean floor.

I don't see anybody in this forum adressing any of my major points. How would you shut down an entire continent worth of road networks? How would you pop a surprise war on an entire continent? How would you invade with an extremely susceptible form of transportation? How would you maintain the war? How would jets fly sorties from Carrier groups that don't exist anymore? And if you factor in an air defense shield around the European seaboard (to protect from England) how would you destroy any of Europe's resources?

Even if I'm the only one debating, I've still won. None of you have proved anything in your debate. I don't see any statistics, no counter-measures, and the most logic I've seen is, "Well, the Pentagon probably already has plans for this kind of thing" as if the European Union wouldn't.

Liverbreath']Yep, Paris France is a piece of cake. They proved they could do it in Iraq just so they could tell the President they didn't need a staging area on another nations soil. The B-2 is a very evil machine. Makes for a whole new set of potiential mental heath issues! hahhhahahha

Don't forget several LEO bombers that are currently on paper in the US. It's very difficult to shoot something down when its skipping along the top of the atmosphere.

oh and i don't care that your a communist, really I don't, but you said overthrow the Gov? Try it and see what happens? what do you want us to have a stalin dictatorship? or what? remember those freedoms your using to admonish our system are what makes this country great(sounding familiar from somewhere)


Actually, I'm a democratic communist. Like most others in these forums, I hate capitalism and want a democratic revolution of the people to overthrow it.

No military historian would pit an island nation that has a smaller population against a single landmass that has comparable technology, I mean, wasn't that the reason that the Japanese lost (I know, aside from their less effective weapons, and defeatist mentality)? Think of the US in this conflict as like a militarily superior Japan. Logistically, they are still disadvantaged. They need to rely on resources that aren't available at home, making them susceptible to blockade, as well as a naval transportation system, making them susceptible to all those nasty little submarines scooting around the ocean floor.
While on a general tech level, Europe and US are similar, at the military level the US/UK/ect. would have the advantage. You talk about blockades and such, when in fact it will be the Anglo-Americans doing the blockading. The US alone has 50+ LA-class nuclear attack subs; the whole of Europe doesn't even have half that many number, and combined with the UK's/Canada's/ect. there will be no fear of getting Anglo-American sea lanes cut off. It would be like the later stages of the Battle of the Atlantic, with EU subs being hunted constantly by dedicated ASW subs, ships and aircraft.

I don't see anybody in this forum adressing any of my major points. How would you shut down an entire continent worth of road networks?
By bombing key intersections and transfer point. Unless you propose the entire civilian pop just stops driving and dedicates the entire road system to the military (in which case you might as well surrender at that point) there's no other way around it.

How would you pop a surprise war on an entire continent?
By being the first ones to launch fighter craft with the mission of destroying as many command and control centers in the first wave. Might not be total surprise, but it'll hit 'em where it hurts.

How would you invade with an extremely susceptible form of transportation?
What do you mean? With total control of the seas the Anglo-Americans would be able to transport forces at will anywhere they please.

How would you maintain the war?
Easy, our factories won't be the ones getting bombed and our trade routes won't be cut off by carrier groups.

How would jets fly sorties from Carrier groups that don't exist anymore?
That's presuming a bit much. How are you going to take out the CVNs in the first place? Besides, we have an unsinkable carrier group just off the mainland, it's called England :D

And if you factor in an air defense shield around the European seaboard (to protect from England) how would you destroy any of Europe's resources?
With the UK on our side that shield would be compromised, and with superior aircraft numbers we would dedicate missions to taking out radar and missile sights to open up windows of oppritunity for the rest of the air forces.

Even if I'm the only one debating, I've still won.
Oh yes, how humble of you :rolleyes:

None of you have proved anything in your debate. I don't see any statistics, no counter-measures, and the most logic I've seen is, "Well, the Pentagon probably already has plans for this kind of thing" as if the European Union wouldn't.
Us? You're the one claiming that Europe will be able to survive using only its railway system, somehow survive long after the Middle East is cut off from them, claiming that your handful of SSBNs will somehow evade over a thousand dedicated ASW craft and be able to nuke Anglo-American forces with ease with no thought to the reprocussions, and a couple other points that I'm too tired to mention. I'd advise you start proving some of your points before you go and take on the role as the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't see you making any remarks about military tactics, or any of you for that matter. I have studied military history (as every revolutionary ought to do) and even with our modernity, war is not a surprise party that you have to overwhelm the world. War abides by the exact same rules it has for hundreds of years. Technology cannot reinvent warfare. It can only make traditional warfare work on a larger and faster scale.

No military historian would pit an island nation that has a smaller population against a single landmass that has comparable technology, I mean, wasn't that the reason that the Japanese lost (I know, aside from their less effective weapons, and defeatist mentality)? Think of the US in this conflict as like a militarily superior Japan. Logistically, they are still disadvantaged. They need to rely on resources that aren't available at home, making them susceptible to blockade, as well as a naval transportation system, making them susceptible to all those nasty little submarines scooting around the ocean floor.

I don't see anybody in this forum adressing any of my major points. How would you shut down an entire continent worth of road networks? How would you pop a surprise war on an entire continent? How would you invade with an extremely susceptible form of transportation? How would you maintain the war? How would jets fly sorties from Carrier groups that don't exist anymore? And if you factor in an air defense shield around the European seaboard (to protect from England) how would you destroy any of Europe's resources?

Even if I'm the only one debating, I've still won. None of you have proved anything in your debate. I don't see any statistics, no counter-measures, and the most logic I've seen is, "Well, the Pentagon probably already has plans for this kind of thing" as if the European Union wouldn't.


No your just hard-head do you even listen?

Okay lets address you major points(like I haven't ten times already)

Road Networks: They are slow, and they don't work very well, we take out strategic points, such as bridges, look at every war in modern history, whats attacked first? the roads!, plus even if your roads are all in place and defended. you forget about the amount of time it takes to move soldeirs, not to mention the amount of vehicles, and GAS how are going to get the gas? (we already dealt with your plan to invade Mid-East). Okay so do you still think roads are the best?

Next: how would you pop a surprise war on a continent: Simple we 1st already have soldiers placed, have you even studied any wars in history, almost all wars are surprise (case and point WWII, he kinda surprise the continent there huh), we land soldiers in france and for the first week you just scramble whatever you can there(unorganized forces tend to be destroyed easily(case and point IRAQ war)

Naval shipping, along with air transport: is one of the best forms of transportaion for military purposes, there are Fast, cheap, DEFENDABLE, they are a moving target, you also seem to forget that both the US and Britain have the 1st and 2nd largest, and strongest navies in the world repectivly. And a nuke can't destroy a fleet as easily as you may have seen... EU doesn't have any viable submarine force(maybe one or two nuke subs)... not to mention we have the most advanced anti-sub tech in the world(cold wars you know)

Again I bring up time: how would you establish an air defene network? there is n't one now! do you honestly suspect them to establish a viable defense network while under attack?(we would bomb it first)

They have very few nukes, and if we had the first strike they would be gone(conventional weapons)

Also how to you think europe has natural resources? Have you been to europe? EVER! (other than a short trip I mean lived in europe), do you even own a map of europe? they have some urianum, little or no oil(we have more), no major iron supplies SO ANSWER me where are they getting these resources... not to mention we would bomb it as soon as you try to get it.... this is a war not some idealistic idea of one... modern warfar is quick and debilitating!!!


READ A BOOK!

And that's the point we're making. Europe already starts off at a disadvantage in the numbers area, hasn't had to fight any major offenses in the last sixty decades, and rapid industrialization just isn't all that possible. Meanwhile as you try and build up your forces the Anglo-Americans will be attacking your countries and you'll be taking loses both in factories and combat-capable aircraft, vehicles, ect.


Understandable, but even with this disadvantage, rapid mobilization in the US is also difficult. While Europeans have smaller numbers, the American industrial machine has lost most of its force in the past 20 years. Small firms supply our regular forces, but aren't nearly equipped enough to supply the necessary soldiers to beat the Europeans in land warfare.

The European industrial facilities are more advanced and more numerous than our own. While they may be at a temporary military disadvantage, given two months they would be able to create the military that the US currently has, and within a few more months, generate a nuclear arsenal that is comparable in size to that of Israel.



That's the thing with you Euro debaters, you constantly forget that the Anglo-Americans would have several times more subs then you, with better detection capabilities then yours, actively hunting for your SSBNs along with overwhelming numbers of ASW ships and aircraft. Not to mention destroying any of your subs while they're still at the pen, either through sabotage or air strikes.


It takes just one sub. One sub. One that hides in the right place, ascends in five minutes, and fires off a nuke, suddenly one of our carrier groups has been destroyed. No amount of preparation can prevent that one lucky sub (and there will probably be several) that manage to escape the defensive shield in place. Because even with superior numbers and superior preparation, things go wrong sometimes. And no amount of preparation can stop a weapon that was designed to be as effective for this type of activity as a nuclear submarine. Because really, it becomes a matter of chance.


But that network doesn't have to deal with an active campaign to disable its capabilities. It takes time to repair a road or railway just from natural forces, not to mention weapons designed specifically to render concrete and rail into scrape. You can't just transport a whole army along a single roadway, supplies and all, in any meaningful time and not expect to be attacked by eager fighter-bombers.


I don't disagree that we have weapons that can destroy roads. But every two lane higway in Europe? It is infeasable. Even if a key bridge is targeted, a few miles away, another will be available. It just might be only a few lanes wide. And even if part of a road is destroyed, it would have to be a bridge if traffic was to be stopped completely, because even when large chunks of a road are taken out, it is still very easy to drive on gravel, or offroad. The Germans had to invade Russia by way of muddy roads, and they did reasonably well. Transportation along an entire continent is far easier than by sea, and while we could destroy a few roads, here and there, there are bound to be others available, not to mention that the Europeans have specialized armor that lays out bridges up to 150 feet long, in case the existing bridge happens to be targeted.

Don't forget several LEO bombers that are currently on paper in the US. It's very difficult to shoot something down when its skipping along the top of the atmosphere.

I have no doubt there are things already functional that would just completely destroy any current battle plans a major enemy might have now. It has been my experience that the united states never uncloaks a new weapons system until its replacement is operational. This be the case, the yf-22 is yesterdays news. :D

Understandable, but even with this disadvantage, rapid mobilization in the US is also difficult. While Europeans have smaller numbers, the American industrial machine has lost most of its force in the past 20 years. Small firms supply our regular forces, but aren't nearly equipped enough to supply the necessary soldiers to beat the Europeans in land warfare.

The European industrial facilities are more advanced and more numerous than our own. While they may be at a temporary military disadvantage, given two months they would be able to create the military that the US currently has, and within a few more months, generate a nuclear arsenal that is comparable in size to that of Israel.




It takes just one sub. One sub. One that hides in the right place, ascends in five minutes, and fires off a nuke, suddenly one of our carrier groups has been destroyed. No amount of preparation can prevent that one lucky sub (and there will probably be several) that manage to escape the defensive shield in place. Because even with superior numbers and superior preparation, things go wrong sometimes. And no amount of preparation can stop a weapon that was designed to be as effective for this type of activity as a nuclear submarine. Because really, it becomes a matter of chance.




I don't disagree that we have weapons that can destroy roads. But every two lane higway in Europe? It is infeasable. Even if a key bridge is targeted, a few miles away, another will be available. It just might be only a few lanes wide. And even if part of a road is destroyed, it would have to be a bridge if traffic was to be stopped completely, because even when large chunks of a road are taken out, it is still very easy to drive on gravel, or offroad. The Germans had to invade Russia by way of muddy roads, and they did reasonably well. Transportation along an entire continent is far easier than by sea, and while we could destroy a few roads, here and there, there are bound to be others available, not to mention that the Europeans have specialized armor that lays out bridges up to 150 feet long, in case the existing bridge happens to be targeted.

YOu don't get it... you don't have 2 months to prep you factories, they are already bombed, we don't need to bomb all your roads all we need to do is slow down your army and guess what time maters in warfare!!!!! Also our military tech is far beyond that of Europe(cold war again), AWS craft alone would hunt your subs down on the break of war... and okay you get maybe maybe 1-4 nukes off and take out 2-3 carrier groups? good for you guess what will happen? we push the BIG RED BUTTON!!!(imagery) and we launch 10000 of ours and europe is gone.... nukes aren't an option, not to mention no european power(outside of britain) has Submarine launchable ICBMS (there is a certain level of tech you have to get to, its very hard)... you don't get it... First week half you army would be dead(and thats if it doesn't go nuclear), and your only chance is to go guerilla! and that won't work... and if you were the student of military theory you claim to be you would know roads are ineffective(WWII after we invaded normandy we had streach supply lines that we could protect not to mention vehicles breaking down)

You lost give it up... you may have a chance under certain conditions but the way your fighting it you would tottally lose in maybe 4 weeks if your luckly!!!!!

I don't see you making any remarks about military tactics, or any of you for that matter. I have studied military history (as every revolutionary ought to do) and even with our modernity, war is not a surprise party that you have to overwhelm the world. War abides by the exact same rules it has for hundreds of years. Technology cannot reinvent warfare. It can only make traditional warfare work on a larger and faster scale.

Wrong, technology can and frequently does reinvent warfare. Whether its from the first human using a sharpened rock on a stick, to using metal weapons, to armor, to guns, to aircraft, to the breaking of the ship-line navy...

Warfare is reinvented all the time as a new technology or new tactic completely destroys pre-concieved notions about war (usually because one side gains dominance in the old ways and another nation is forced to innovate).

For instance, one of the most obvious innovations warfare is about to undergo is the arming of space.

No military historian would pit an island nation that has a smaller population against a single landmass that has comparable technology, I mean, wasn't that the reason that the Japanese lost (I know, aside from their less effective weapons, and defeatist mentality)? Think of the US in this conflict as like a militarily superior Japan. Logistically, they are still disadvantaged. They need to rely on resources that aren't available at home, making them susceptible to blockade, as well as a naval transportation system, making them susceptible to all those nasty little submarines scooting around the ocean floor.

I swear, it's nearly impossible to address your posts because they are so fundementally flawed, let me take this one sentence at a time.

[QUOTE=]No military historian would pit an island nation that has a smaller population against a single landmass that has comparable technology, I mean, wasn't that the reason that the Japanese lost (I know, aside from their less effective weapons, and defeatist mentality)?

While this is true, Japan lost not only because of their limited resources, but because they picked on a nation that, at the time, was the premier industrial nation in the world. If we had wanted to, we could have provided a rather significant portion of all the war materials used in the second world war. Hell, that was the direction we were heading in before Pearl Harbor. Had we been supplying Japan and Germany, too (something we could have done), we would have been so enriched its arguable that we would have been even more economically powerful coming out of it than we were having fought the war.

hink of the US in this conflict as like a militarily superior Japan. Logistically, they are still disadvantaged. They need to rely on resources that aren't available at home, making them susceptible to blockade, as well as a naval transportation system, making them susceptible to all those nasty little submarines scooting around the ocean floor.

I'll put this in bold so it's easy to understand for you:

The total area of the Continental United States is 9,631,418 square kilometers. It is by no means an island. The only significant resource we need to import is oil. Assuming ration conditions similar to World War II, we could concievably live on reserve supplies and supplies from Alaska and Canada for years. Not to mention that there is only one navy in existance capable of blockading the United States: the USNavy.

For every attack submarine in Europeon possession, the US has 3 that are of better quality, more technologically advanced, and with better trained and more experienced crews. No Europeon nation but France and Britian have any ballistic missile submarines of capable note. Britian is on our side and France has a total of six it can pull out of mothball and recommission, all of which are within a 20-30 year old range and would require a significant overhaul to make suitable for modern combat.

The United States has 12 supercarriers in commission. The closest nation in terms of numbers is Britian, with one.

The USN is, in effect, stronger than the navies of the rest of the world combined.

I don't see anybody in this forum adressing any of my major points. How would you shut down an entire continent worth of road networks?

You don't have to bomb the entire thing, far from it actually. You just have to hit the important points: bridges, junctions, important highway intersections, etc.

How would you pop a surprise war on an entire continent?

I don't know why everyone else operates under the assumption that this war is going to happen tomorrow, so I don't think there's going to be anything like a surprise war.

However, I should mention D-Day was by and large a surprise invasion, on multiple accounts. From England into France, no less.

How would you invade with an extremely susceptible form of transportation?

Susceptible to what? The only reason German U-boats were so effective in WWII was that the Allies had no comparable submarine force and there weren't any really good ways of detecting submarines back then. Now, with systems like MAD, there's no where to hide. With submarine screens all around transport convoys, there's no sneaking around.

How would you maintain the war?

Major wartime economies have a way of maintaining themselves. Not to mention the Europeons are going to have a lot harder of a time maintaining both their welfare states and a war with two of the top three most powerful militaries in the world.

How would jets fly sorties from Carrier groups that don't exist anymore?

Better question: How are the Europeons going to sink even one carrier when a single carrier battlegroup represents more power than any one Europeon country's navy?

And if you factor in an air defense shield around the European seaboard (to protect from England) how would you destroy any of Europe's resources?

Air defenses are no where near as effective as you are making them. Currently, the only country that is even close to developing a way to see stealth aircraft is Britian, and they're on our side. Not only that, but radar and radio can both be jammed (this is a field where technology means everything and advantage goes to America here).

Even if I'm the only one debating, I've still won. None of you have proved anything in your debate. I don't see any statistics, no counter-measures, and the most logic I've seen is, "Well, the Pentagon probably already has plans for this kind of thing" as if the European Union wouldn't.

Oddly enough, I see even less effort from you.

Understandable, but even with this disadvantage, rapid mobilization in the US is also difficult. While Europeans have smaller numbers, the American industrial machine has lost most of its force in the past 20 years. Small firms supply our regular forces, but aren't nearly equipped enough to supply the necessary soldiers to beat the Europeans in land warfare.

The European industrial facilities are more advanced and more numerous than our own. While they may be at a temporary military disadvantage, given two months they would be able to create the military that the US currently has, and within a few more months, generate a nuclear arsenal that is comparable in size to that of Israel.
Prove it. Prove that the European industries are superior to American, that they can pump out this hugh Euro military within months that can challenge the Anglo-Americans. Prove that they can do this whilst being continually bombed by the Anglo-American forces. We know the US and UK can because they already posses one of the largest militaries in the Western world with significant tech advantages.

It takes just one sub. One sub. One that hides in the right place, ascends in five minutes, and fires off a nuke, suddenly one of our carrier groups has been destroyed. No amount of preparation can prevent that one lucky sub (and there will probably be several) that manage to escape the defensive shield in place. Because even with superior numbers and superior preparation, things go wrong sometimes. And no amount of preparation can stop a weapon that was designed to be as effective for this type of activity as a nuclear submarine. Because really, it becomes a matter of chance.
Out of all of the EU besides the UK, only France has SSBNs, and she has a total of four, four of them (Inflexible, Triomphant, Temeraire, Vigilante). If the UK/US/ect. were planning on going to war against the EU, you can bet your ass they will have already tracked down those four subs and be standing by with multiple attack subs ready to torpedo them straight to the bottom. We know it can be done, hell we were doing the same to the Russians and could pinpoint nearly all of their SSBNs and be ready to take them out when needed.

I don't disagree that we have weapons that can destroy roads. But every two lane higway in Europe? It is infeasable. Even if a key bridge is targeted, a few miles away, another will be available. It just might be only a few lanes wide. And even if part of a road is destroyed, it would have to be a bridge if traffic was to be stopped completely, because even when large chunks of a road are taken out, it is still very easy to drive on gravel, or offroad. The Germans had to invade Russia by way of muddy roads, and they did reasonably well. Transportation along an entire continent is far easier than by sea, and while we could destroy a few roads, here and there, there are bound to be others available, not to mention that the Europeans have specialized armor that lays out bridges up to 150 feet long, in case the existing bridge happens to be targeted.
The Germans did well? They were defeated if you didn't notice. You don't seem to grasp the importance with which blowing up "a few bridges and roads" presents. It means your logistics will be more confined to a smaller amount of roads, meaning a better chance of fighter-bombers catching them with their pants down. It means your civilian population will be severly limited in their travel options and your economy and public opinion will suffer. Esp. with bridges, you will have to spend time and resources rebuilding those transportation mediums that could have gone into other projects; and there won't always be "another bridge a few miles away that can be used", not unless you don't mind leaving all of your heavy equipment behind (anything that can support a tank's weight will be priority targets of course)

Actually, I'm a democratic communist. Like most others in these forums, I hate capitalism and want a democratic revolution of the people to overthrow it.

Wouldn't you have a much better future if you were to go someplace that already had your idea of utopia? Lets face it, once you get out of your current geographic location you become suddenly a very isolated rebel. Besides, you could sort of test drive paradise on someone elses dime so to speak. I have to tell you I have known many many people who thought marxism of whatever flavor was just a wonderful idea, only to become very disillusioned with it a few years later.
Also, when you think about it, the chances of the government letting you live through such an attempt is even less than you being completely satisfied with your theory of choice.

No your just hard-head do you even listen?

Okay lets address you major points(like I haven't ten times already)

Road Networks: They are slow, and they don't work very well, we take out strategic points, such as bridges, look at every war in modern history, whats attacked first? the roads!, plus even if your roads are all in place and defended. you forget about the amount of time it takes to move soldeirs, not to mention the amount of vehicles, and GAS how are going to get the gas? (we already dealt with your plan to invade Mid-East). Okay so do you still think roads are the best?

Next: how would you pop a surprise war on a continent: Simple we 1st already have soldiers placed, have you even studied any wars in history, almost all wars are surprise (case and point WWII, he kinda surprise the continent there huh), we land soldiers in france and for the first week you just scramble whatever you can there(unorganized forces tend to be destroyed easily(case and point IRAQ war)

Naval shipping, along with air transport: is one of the best forms of transportaion for military purposes, there are Fast, cheap, DEFENDABLE, they are a moving target, you also seem to forget that both the US and Britain have the 1st and 2nd largest, and strongest navies in the world repectivly. And a nuke can't destroy a fleet as easily as you may have seen... EU doesn't have any viable submarine force(maybe one or two nuke subs)... not to mention we have the most advanced anti-sub tech in the world(cold wars you know)

Again I bring up time: how would you establish an air defene network? there is n't one now! do you honestly suspect them to establish a viable defense network while under attack?(we would bomb it first)

They have very few nukes, and if we had the first strike they would be gone(conventional weapons)

Also how to you think europe has natural resources? Have you been to europe? EVER! (other than a short trip I mean lived in europe), do you even own a map of europe? they have some urianum, little or no oil(we have more), no major iron supplies SO ANSWER me where are they getting these resources... not to mention we would bomb it as soon as you try to get it.... this is a war not some idealistic idea of one... modern warfar is quick and debilitating!!!


READ A BOOK!



I lived in Europe for an ENTIRE YEAR, or didn't you read my other posts?

You are trying to beat a dead dog that really happens to be a very large and angry elephant, that paved road networks are a slow means of travel. I have driven from Germany to Spain in 12 hours, and cars travel at between 40 mph and 80 mph normally. Now, how in the world could anything be faster for transporting mass materials than a road system??? And how would you take out this said road system when transport vehicles can easily GO OFFROADING?

A war doesn't get started instantly. While forces may act immediately, diplomatic pressures and international discussion leading up to a war of this scale may take years! It took more than six months for Bush to invade Iraq, and the magnitude of a conflict like this would mean that the EU had years to become mobilized. Wars don't just happen. Things build up to them. And one of those things would be a decent military buildup in the EU. Even if it was still inferior to that of the US, it would be enough to effectively protect itself from the Dixies when they declared war.

Even if inter-ocean transportation is effective, the carrier groups necessary to provide protection to invasion forces would be easily targeted and destroyed. Along with the invasion forces. Any offensive naval activity would be easily targeted, and while submarine defenses may *work*, they can't stop anything that surfaces within 5 minutes and hides just as quickly. No plane is that fast, and SONAR is most effective underwater, where it can also be easily detected.

Allow me to make this statement. Submarines are invincible. The reasons being that they give all the advantage to the agressor, and while they *can* be targeted and destroyed, the likelihood of this is very small.

Liverbreath']Wouldn't you have a much better future if you were to go someplace that already had your idea of utopia? Lets face it, once you get out of your current geographic location you become suddenly a very isolated rebel. Besides, you could sort of test drive paradise on someone elses dime so to speak. I have to tell you I have known many many people who thought marxism of whatever flavor was just a wonderful idea, only to become very disillusioned with it a few years later.
Also, when you think about it, the chances of the government letting you live through such an attempt is even less than you being completely satisfied with your theory of choice.


I'm trying to educate America as to how bad things suck right now. After a large enough period of time, Marxism will be well supported (like this current generation seems to be doing) I only seek to instigate until an effective time comes to act

Here is a force comparison model from the net. Feel free to browse and compare forces and comment.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

You are trying to beat a dead dog that really happens to be a very large and angry elephant, that paved road networks are a slow means of travel. I have driven from Germany to Spain in 12 hours, and cars travel at between 40 mph and 80 mph normally. Now, how in the world could anything be faster for transporting mass materials than a road system??? And how would you take out this said road system when transport vehicles can easily GO OFFROADING?
So your entire logistical support structure is simply going to go "off-road"? Do you know how incredibly stupid that is? There's a reason Ike built the highway system and Hitler built the Autobahn, and it wasn't because they wanted to give their citizens an easier time going cross-country. Your supply network will be going at a snail's pace if they try to off-road it, which will only lead to the EU's defeat. Driving in a single car from Germany to Spain =/= Transporter an entire army and the supplies to allow it to fight to such a degree that I'm wondering if you have any idea of what you're talking about.

A war doesn't get started instantly. While forces may act immediately, diplomatic pressures and international discussion leading up to a war of this scale may take years! It took more than six months for Bush to invade Iraq, and the magnitude of a conflict like this would mean that the EU had years to become mobilized. Wars don't just happen. Things build up to them. And one of those things would be a decent military buildup in the EU. Even if it was still inferior to that of the US, it would be enough to effectively protect itself from the Dixies when they declared war.
So the Anglo-Americans are simply going to sit on their hands while the EU builds up this super-military? No matter what, we will always have the numbers advantages, while you must try and maintain your welfare states at the same time as going all militaristic, at the same time trying to justify these costs to a pacifist population.

Even if inter-ocean transportation is effective, the carrier groups necessary to provide protection to invasion forces would be easily targeted and destroyed. Along with the invasion forces. Any offensive naval activity would be easily targeted, and while submarine defenses may *work*, they can't stop anything that surfaces within 5 minutes and hides just as quickly. No plane is that fast, and SONAR is most effective underwater, where it can also be easily detected.
Total BS. Back up all of these assertions of yours. How exactly is a carrier battle group, zig-zagging at 30 knots with the electronic jamming of its aircraft alone able to seriously f*ck with your missile systems, going to be an "easy target"? I can count the number of viable attack subs for the EU on both hands, just how effective are they going to be when nearly a hundred Anglo-American subs are gunning for them?

Allow me to make this statement. Submarines are invincible. The reasons being that they give all the advantage to the agressor, and while they *can* be targeted and destroyed, the likelihood of this is very small.
More BS. Subs are not invincible, and you have such a small number of them at we could dedicate 5 subs, ASW craft and anti-sub ships into finding and destroying each and every one, and still have plenty left over to protect our carrier battle groups and shipping lanes.

I'm trying to educate America as to how bad things suck right now. After a large enough period of time, Marxism will be well supported (like this current generation seems to be doing) I only seek to instigate until an effective time comes to act

Well good luck to you. You have chosen a very difficult and short path in life. I recommend lifting weights a whole lot...or practice saying, "Yes daddy Bubba" a whole bunch because to be honest if you are lucky living life behind bars is going to be the best case end result.

I lived in Europe for an ENTIRE YEAR, or didn't you read my other posts?

You are trying to beat a dead dog that really happens to be a very large and angry elephant, that paved road networks are a slow means of travel. I have driven from Germany to Spain in 12 hours, and cars travel at between 40 mph and 80 mph normally. Now, how in the world could anything be faster for transporting mass materials than a road system??? And how would you take out this said road system when transport vehicles can easily GO OFFROADING?

A war doesn't get started instantly. While forces may act immediately, diplomatic pressures and international discussion leading up to a war of this scale may take years! It took more than six months for Bush to invade Iraq, and the magnitude of a conflict like this would mean that the EU had years to become mobilized. Wars don't just happen. Things build up to them. And one of those things would be a decent military buildup in the EU. Even if it was still inferior to that of the US, it would be enough to effectively protect itself from the Dixies when they declared war.

Even if inter-ocean transportation is effective, the carrier groups necessary to provide protection to invasion forces would be easily targeted and destroyed. Along with the invasion forces. Any offensive naval activity would be easily targeted, and while submarine defenses may *work*, they can't stop anything that surfaces within 5 minutes and hides just as quickly. No plane is that fast, and SONAR is most effective underwater, where it can also be easily detected.

Allow me to make this statement. Submarines are invincible. The reasons being that they give all the advantage to the agressor, and while they *can* be targeted and destroyed, the likelihood of this is very small.

okay some flaws

1st: offroading? have you tried to take a duece and half full of explosives off roading? your expeience on the autoboune doesn't count!!!!! First we bomb stratigeic points!! Slowing you down because you got to find a way around!, Then civilians use those roads too you know!!, you can only load so much into a truck(do you have any idea how many trucks will be needed to keep a frontline going that 1000 miles away?)

2nd: COLD FUCKING WAR: how many times do I got to mention it? we own the alantic AWS, the Alantic sonar net? as soon as you leave port we have your ships taged!! don't beleave me? look at the soviets, we knew where everyone one of their ships are... Also every hear of the ohio class sub? they are so quite the ocean is louder!! and we have em nothing the french have comes close, all of their subs are 30+ years old all of ours have top of the line tech! And you assume you can just use nukes on us and get away with it? okay you destroy a city or a carrier group bye bye europe (nukes aren't an option) so what you hunt down our shipping lines? like I said we own the alantic, for every one sub you put out we put out ten more advanced kind... all american soldiers do is train(espiecially in nuke subs)

3rd: War does happen on surprise: D-DAY!!!, poland, WWII, IRAQ its doesn't matter!

4rth: oh yeah germany to france in 12 hours, thats really good time... too bad I can paradrop 10000 soldiers there in about a half an hour,

5th you think we can see a sub just when its up? its not 1940 anymore!! as i said before most advanced sub-hunting systems in the world(the soviets made us a bit scared on that)

6th: Submarine are vulnerable not invincable, if you were in the military you would know that... Unless you spead a lot of money in quite tech and once you make an aggressive move(like load a torpedo) guess what we can see you even with quite tech

7th you know notthing on this.... why are you even arguing still!!!

Ugh. I try to stay out of the General forum, as it makes my blood boil, and it did, and now I'm angry.

First off, before I address the military points: Stop Banning Me Mods, you are a traitor. Leave the United States as soon as humanly possible. You have openly admitted your wish for the American Nation and constitution to be destroyed. You are a traitor, and should be arrested, tried, placed in Levensworth Federal Penetentary for the rest of your life. (not mentioning the stricter punishment, as I like my nation, and wish for it not to be deleted)

Okay, I'm done ranting. On to military.
=========================================
THE ANGLOCOILITION INVASION OF CONTINENTAL EUROPE

First The LANTFLT is mobilized, as is the Royal Navy of Great Britian, and the Canadian Royal Navy (is that what our friendly northern neighbours call it?). The cover? Joint training excersise. A BIG one. Happens all the time, so no one will really care. However, they don't have training missiles. Oops. Also, the RAF, CAF, and USAF all mobilize for joint training, as well as some more secret stuff (See: Google, "Area 51"; Google: "SACOM").

Meanawhile, as the navy is tugging along towards the British Isles, where the "excersise" is taking place, the Air Force is up and running. This is how I would do it:

Obviously, right now, even with the stealth bombers currently in possession, the US couldn't use them to take all of the transit places out in Europe. So, they would head to the capitals of the respective nations in their handy dandy B2 Spirit stealth bombers, and blow the hell out of the capital building(s) -- hopefully while pariliament is in session. (Except Switzerland, who is staying neutral. :))

By this time, the European Mainland knows the US is attacking, and knows who's helping (you can't expect them to play dumb for too long). So, war is declared, and Europe starts mobilizing.

Unfortunately for us, though, I'm too tired and can't think straight, so I'll finish up my post tomorrow....maybe.

I hope ya'll have a wonderful day.

Except you, SBMM, I hate you with a very strong passion.

well I love general, I don't know that many idiots in real life so I come here in an attempt to convert!

Understandable, but even with this disadvantage, rapid mobilization in the US is also difficult. While Europeans have smaller numbers, the American industrial machine has lost most of its force in the past 20 years. Small firms supply our regular forces, but aren't nearly equipped enough to supply the necessary soldiers to beat the Europeans in land warfare.

The European industrial facilities are more advanced and more numerous than our own. While they may be at a temporary military disadvantage, given two months they would be able to create the military that the US currently has, and within a few more months, generate a nuclear arsenal that is comparable in size to that of Israel.

HAHAHAHAHA! OMG! This is just pure entertainment. Not only are you completely wrong, but you're also ignorant to the extreme.

The United States still maintains its position as the largest industrial power in the world, with roughly 33 million employed in the manufacturing sector, a number larger than the entire population of many Europeon countries. Admittedly, the gap has narrowed since the industrial might in the post-WWII world, but you want to know whos been catching up? China! Not Europe, whos industry is in an even sadder state than America's.

Not only that, but not even America at the height of its manufacturing power could have produced enough war material to catch up to the modern USN from the sad state of the modern Europeon navy in 2 years, let alone 2 months. Such spending would not only wreck the economy, but it would probably also not be logistically possible.

It takes just one sub. One sub. One that hides in the right place, ascends in five minutes, and fires off a nuke, suddenly one of our carrier groups has been destroyed. No amount of preparation can prevent that one lucky sub (and there will probably be several) that manage to escape the defensive shield in place. Because even with superior numbers and superior preparation, things go wrong sometimes. And no amount of preparation can stop a weapon that was designed to be as effective for this type of activity as a nuclear submarine. Because really, it becomes a matter of chance.

Europe has a total of six SSBN's available to it, assuming France is allowed to bring some out of mothball, which leaves only four if they aren't. I guarentee you that, between the SOSUS net and other intelligence gathering methods, the US would be able to know where they were at all times and have the ability to sink them at their leisure.

Not only that, but I find your willingness to throw nukes into the equation ridiculous. No one will be using any form of nuclear weaponry because its basically a green light for the other side to do so. Here the US has advantages in more than numbers: neutron bombs, something only the US and Russia have any knowledge in, would be able to wipe out vast sections of the Europeon military and civilian population, leaving the infrastructure intact for occupation of territory and appropriation of war materials.

The US is also the only nation with ready access to tactical nuclear weapons.

well I love general, I don't know that many idiots in real life so I come here in an attempt to convert!

It's all about anonimity (sp wrong but I dont' care, it's late!), knowing that what you say will not affect you means people tend to act more like idiots online then they would in real life (where their insults would mean they'd get punched in the face)

HAHAHAHAHA! OMG! This is just pure entertainment. Not only are you completely wrong, but you're also ignorant to the extreme.

The United States still maintains its position as the largest industrial power in the world, with roughly 33 million employed in the manufacturing sector, a number larger than the entire population of many Europeon countries. Admittedly, the gap has narrowed since the industrial might in the post-WWII world, but you want to know whos been catching up? China! Not Europe, whos industry is in an even sadder state than America's.

Not only that, but not even America at the height of its manufacturing power could have produced enough war material to catch up to the modern USN from the sad state of the modern Europeon navy in 2 years, let alone 2 months. Such spending would not only wreck the economy, but it would probably also not be logistically possible.



Europe has a total of six SSBN's available to it, assuming France is allowed to bring some out of mothball, which leaves only four if they aren't. I guarentee you that, between the SOSUS net and other intelligence gathering methods, the US would be able to know where they were at all times and have the ability to sink them at their leisure.

Not only that, but I find your willingness to throw nukes into the equation ridiculous. No one will be using any form of nuclear weaponry because its basically a green light for the other side to do so. Here the US has advantages in more than numbers: neutron bombs, something only the US and Russia have any knowledge in, would be able to wipe out vast sections of the Europeon military and civilian population, leaving the infrastructure intact for occupation of territory and appropriation of war materials.

The US is also the only nation with ready access to tactical nuclear weapons.

So the score is:

logic: 10000
nonsense: 0

good to see people like you can see beyond the BS

It's all about anonimity (sp wrong but I dont' care, it's late!), knowing that what you say will not affect you means people tend to act more like idiots online then they would in real life (where their insults would mean they'd get punched in the face)
yes if I was having this aurgument in real life, as soon as he said "down with the US gov blah blah blah...." I would'ev called him an idiot and ended it... anyway I don't think he would hold on to his opinion this long in real life because i already disproved his points, where here all he does keep stating his points..

yeah 400 posts,,..... wait now its 401 my planes of having a nice round number is gone Oh well 99 more to go then...

1:38am here must go to sleep........ nightmares of morons will plague my dreams!!!!

Ugh. I try to stay out of the General forum, as it makes my blood boil, and it did, and now I'm angry.

First off, before I address the military points: Stop Banning Me Mods, you are a traitor. Leave the United States as soon as humanly possible. You have openly admitted your wish for the American Nation and constitution to be destroyed. You are a traitor, and should be arrested, tried, placed in Levensworth Federal Penetentary for the rest of your life. (not mentioning the stricter punishment, as I like my nation, and wish for it not to be deleted)

No, this thinking is even more dangerous than his. Not until he has activily gone against the American government in a violent way is he a traitor. America thrives on different opinions. Our freedom to hold these opinions is what makes America so fucking great.

Though, the way in which he hates America makes me wonder why he doesn't simply leave. I mean, I'm not telling he has to or telling him at all, but he obviously hates everything about America, you'd think he wouldn't want to live here.

Prove it. Prove that the European industries are superior to American, that they can pump out this hugh Euro military within months that can challenge the Anglo-Americans. Prove that they can do this whilst being continually bombed by the Anglo-American forces. We know the US and UK can because they already posses one of the largest militaries in the Western world with significant tech advantages.


Out of all of the EU besides the UK, only France has SSBNs, and she has a total of four, four of them (Inflexible, Triomphant, Temeraire, Vigilante). If the UK/US/ect. were planning on going to war against the EU, you can bet your ass they will have already tracked down those four subs and be standing by with multiple attack subs ready to torpedo them straight to the bottom. We know it can be done, hell we were doing the same to the Russians and could pinpoint nearly all of their SSBNs and be ready to take them out when needed.


The Germans did well? They were defeated if you didn't notice. You don't seem to grasp the importance with which blowing up "a few bridges and roads" presents. It means your logistics will be more confined to a smaller amount of roads, meaning a better chance of fighter-bombers catching them with their pants down. It means your civilian population will be severly limited in their travel options and your economy and public opinion will suffer. Esp. with bridges, you will have to spend time and resources rebuilding those transportation mediums that could have gone into other projects; and there won't always be "another bridge a few miles away that can be used", not unless you don't mind leaving all of your heavy equipment behind (anything that can support a tank's weight will be priority targets of course)


Fuck, I spent too much time on my post, give me a minute to find my resources again.

Ugh. I try to stay out of the General forum, as it makes my blood boil, and it did, and now I'm angry.

First off, before I address the military points: Stop Banning Me Mods, you are a traitor. Leave the United States as soon as humanly possible. You have openly admitted your wish for the American Nation and constitution to be destroyed. You are a traitor, and should be arrested, tried, placed in Levensworth Federal Penetentary for the rest of your life. (not mentioning the stricter punishment, as I like my nation, and wish for it not to be deleted)

Okay, I'm done ranting. On to military.
=========================================
THE ANGLOCOILITION INVASION OF CONTINENTAL EUROPE

First The LANTFLT is mobilized, as is the Royal Navy of Great Britian, and the Canadian Royal Navy (is that what our friendly northern neighbours call it?). The cover? Joint training excersise. A BIG one. Happens all the time, so no one will really care. However, they don't have training missiles. Oops. Also, the RAF, CAF, and USAF all mobilize for joint training, as well as some more secret stuff (See: Google, "Area 51"; Google: "SACOM").

Meanawhile, as the navy is tugging along towards the British Isles, where the "excersise" is taking place, the Air Force is up and running. This is how I would do it:

Obviously, right now, even with the stealth bombers currently in possession, the US couldn't use them to take all of the transit places out in Europe. So, they would head to the capitals of the respective nations in their handy dandy B2 Spirit stealth bombers, and blow the hell out of the capital building(s) -- hopefully while pariliament is in session. (Except Switzerland, who is staying neutral. :))

By this time, the European Mainland knows the US is attacking, and knows who's helping (you can't expect them to play dumb for too long). So, war is declared, and Europe starts mobilizing.

Unfortunately for us, though, I'm too tired and can't think straight, so I'll finish up my post tomorrow....maybe.

I hope ya'll have a wonderful day.

Except you, SBMM, I hate you with a very strong passion.


The feeling isn't mutual. Though I must say you brought up some very good points. As of late our bomber fleet is only 171 active duty planes, not enough to hinder the transportation systems of Europe. I had a source that showed that European steel production is of higher quality and outweighs that of the United States and Britain. But I lost it while compiling more sources. Fuck. And you really need not hate me, I'm not trying to kill anyone or piss on the constitution or ruin America or any of that crap. Me and all the other 3 million leftists in this country are just trying to show you that your boss is an asshole, and you should become your own boss (on the simplest level) So don't hate me. It's unwarranted. And it's fair discussion actually, there is nothing wrong with leftism so that you should hate me, and as a christian, you are supposed to be a socialist. Or at least someone who doesn't advocate capitalism because god thinks it's evil (I would know, I'm a christian too).

Sorry I lost my sources, I had them all here in my other post, but they got deleted or some crap. But I reinforce my current argument, that the production capabilities of Europe are more than able to mobilize for a war of this magnitude. Though the US has better guns, they do not have control over the Eurasian landmass, which, ultimately will be more important in a conventional war. Though key locations can be targeted, Europe cannot be easily reduced to rubble.

After holding off the American military for awhile, the resources of this continent (including the massive mineral deposits throughout Russia) will be enough to effectively mobilize for their war effort. Our former super-power enemy, Russia, still has a massive military that can be utilized for a short time until the production levels of the European nations matches that of the US.

Would that happen, the Commonwealth would be a better name for it. Interestingly such a battle is part of Hal Lindsey's "The Late Great Planet Earth"
Total EU Army: Five drunk guys with bad breath, wearing lederhosen who would be constantly farting, and holding outdated rifles in one hand and Sausages in the other, with bad attitudes.

"I'd Hate you, but *fart*, I need another beer/ wine and *fart* you are not worth *Fart* my time!"

- EU Soldier

UCSB Army:

5 Million guys and girls who don't really want to fight, or know what they're fighting for, or have any worthwhile equipment and Private Security consultants with Super Robo Combat Suits

"For Halliburton, and Rolls Royce, and DHC, and oh yeah, for the UCSB!"
-UCSB SOldier

Battle Report:

UCSB sends Nike Drone over EU base camp, convienently disguised as pub, but "toxic substance" causes drone to crash, and become sex toy for EU Army, UCSB immediately invades EU, promptly loses 60% of its forces to changing public opinion, and morale disintigration, war ends when both forces launch offensive on Amsterdam, The Netherlands and refuse to fight any longer, on account of being to stoned. Combined UCSB- EU Army raids Twinkie factory soon after.

Britain would. Europe shattered under the power of the German war machine. Guess which countries didnt....thats right. Britain, America and Canada! And Russia....but at the expense of 250,000 men and a lucky winter. If I remember rightly we saved Europe and broke Germany.
:D
If that is your only argument, I would say this:
Water is not as much a barrier as it once was, my friend.

The EU would have no chance against a US-Canadian-British alliance. Now, I don't know much about British and Canadian forces, but I do know the American.

First off, the US Navy alone has a dozen supercarriers with a fleet of support craft at the ready. The EU has a total of (what?) 6 smaller carriers with their fleets. Without a doubt, the anglo-american navy would dominate the Atlantic. Even if the EU was able to destroy all the opposing carrier groups (BIG if), what makes you think the US couldn't do the same?
We have twice as many attack subs as the rest of Europe combined, and ours our very good at remaining quiet. In war-games during NATO exercises American Los Angeles-class subs are able to sneak within a few hundred yards before French or German subs notice them. Then you have the more advanced Sea Wolf-class, and even newer Virginia-class.
America's surface and submarine forces outstrip the EU's in numbers, technology, and training.
In the end, the Atlantic would belong to the anglo-americans. Troops and supplies could be transported to the continent with impunity.

In the air war, the anglo-Americans would again be victorious. Europe does not have the ability to detect America's stealth bomber: B-2 and F-117. European factories, railroads, interstates, shipyards, and radar stations would be bombed with impunity.

Europe would never bring out the nuclear option. They'd rather be conquered than incinerated by a few thousand American nukes. Without even looking at the mainland, just the US ballistic subs. Each sub carries 24 missiles capable of destroying an entire city. Multiply that by the number ballistic subs the US has. The launching of even a single nuke would be the EU's final mistake.

In the end, the EU would be fighting on their land. The Atlantic would be cut off to them making it impossible to effectively retaliate. Infrastructure would destroyed, transport routes annihilated without any warning. All this while the massive industry that is the US and Canada is safely chugging out tanks, planes and bombs 3000 miles away.

:D
If that is your only argument, I would say this:
Water is not as much a barrier as it once was, my friend.

I dont get you. Anyway we are stronger than we ever were whereas nowhere else is. Except for France maybe but that will only give them about 4 weeks to hold out lol

And Russia....but at the expense of 250,000 men and a lucky winter.

Try 25 million people, one bad winter, several city battles, one huge Tank battle across a battlefield over the size of Wales, and a Red Army which was so numerous, and had high quality Tanks that evetually crushed the Germans.

250,000 men is probably what the Soviets lost in a few months.

I don't see you making any remarks about military tactics, or any of you for that matter. I have studied military history (as every revolutionary ought to do) and even with our modernity, war is not a surprise party that you have to overwhelm the world. War abides by the exact same rules it has for hundreds of years. Technology cannot reinvent warfare. It can only make traditional warfare work on a larger and faster scale.

Technology can't re-invent warfare? Now that has got to be one of your most ignorant statements I've heard. FIRE re-invented warfare! Cannon re-invented warfare, rockets reinvented warfare, airplanes re-invented warfare, not to mention missiles and bombs followed by nukes. They all re-invented warfare SBMM. Apparently your study of warfare (and I have studied military history in detail) is non-existant. My tactics are those that are perfect for combat in Europe. you said it yourself that railways go into every major city. Care to explain to me what whould happen when we take out those connections that lead into the cities? Nothing will move. Your Airports will be unusable. The Road network will also be non-existant. You maybe a son of the military dude, but apparently you haven't learned a thing about our military.

No military historian would pit an island nation that has a smaller population against a single landmass that has comparable technology, I mean, wasn't that the reason that the Japanese lost (I know, aside from their less effective weapons, and defeatist mentality)?

Japan actually had one of the best navies, best carrier force, and better equipment at the start of the war. They just blundered the Pearl Harbor attack that allowed us to recover and toss them back across the Pacific.

Think of the US in this conflict as like a militarily superior Japan. Logistically, they are still disadvantaged. They need to rely on resources that aren't available at home, making them susceptible to blockade, as well as a naval transportation system, making them susceptible to all those nasty little submarines scooting around the ocean floor.

Good luck in blockading. The blockade wont succeed. Here's why it won't succeed. Coast line. We are have coasts on 2 oceans not to mention a gulf. Are you going to do air too? Good luck. We have an airforce that'll protect the planes too. The blockade is doomed to fail so its not even worth it. However, blockading Europe is easy. Why? We know the entry points to get to Italy (just blockade the mouth of the Mediterranian Sea. Not to mention we can put ships in the English Channel as well. Oops. Europe is now blockaded. Now couple that with the US and British sub fleets and Europe will be hard pressed to do anything. You are showing that in your study of military history, you haven't learned a thing.

I don't see anybody in this forum adressing any of my major points.

That's because you haven't been reading what we've been typing in regards to your major points. Europe doesn't have the technology to take on the United States/Britain/Canada military.

How would you shut down an entire continent worth of road networks?

bomblets and cluster bombs.

How would you pop a surprise war on an entire continent?

Subs and stealth aircraft.

How would you invade with an extremely susceptible form of transportation?

Air drops and amphibious landings.

How would you maintain the war? How would jets fly sorties from Carrier groups that don't exist anymore?

1. Taking things over is one way
2. They will be in existance because anyone that tried to nuke them will be heated up a few thousand degrees.

And if you factor in an air defense shield around the European seaboard (to protect from England) how would you destroy any of Europe's resources?

Cruise missiles. :rolleyes: You are showing your intellect. It isn't befitting someone with a college education. I think your brain has been warped.

Even if I'm the only one debating, I've still won.

So sure of yourself aren't you. You haven't learned a thing in your studies of history. You overestimate the European Strength and underestimate the US/British/Canadian strength.

None of you have proved anything in your debate.

We have told you precisely what will happen as technology stands now. We know the technology of europe. We know our own technology. We know the vulnerable points to strike in Europe. The only nation Europe can hit conventionaly is Britain. However, you won't have that luxury when the airports and airbases get themselves hammered.

I don't see any statistics, no counter-measures, and the most logic I've seen is, "Well, the Pentagon probably already has plans for this kind of thing" as if the European Union wouldn't.

1. You haven't provided us with statistics
2. Anti-missile defense systems, radar, asw warfare etc
3. European Union doesn't have a military :rolleyes:

As of late our bomber fleet is only 171 active duty planes, not enough to hinder the transportation systems of Europe.
What the hell have you beens smoking, and can I have some? The USAF alone has over 200 F-15Es in active service, and those arn't even dedicated ground attack craft. You don't need bloody B-52s to take out a railroad or roadway.

I had a source that showed that European steel production is of higher quality and outweighs that of the United States and Britain. But I lost it while compiling more sources. Fuck.
Sure :rolleyes: Bit convinent don't ya think, perhaps next time link us to these sources when you present your argument and you won't look stupid.


Sorry I lost my sources, I had them all here in my other post, but they got deleted or some crap. But I reinforce my current argument, that the production capabilities of Europe are more than able to mobilize for a war of this magnitude.
Right, you don't have anything to back it up, and we're suppose to believe this? When you could've posted these "damning" sources from the very beginning and avoid looking like a total idiot, excuse me if I don't take you seriously.

Though the US has better guns, they do not have control over the Eurasian landmass, which, ultimately will be more important in a conventional war. Though key locations can be targeted, Europe cannot be easily reduced to rubble.
Turkey isn't going to help you, so you'll have to go all the way around the Black Sea. Even if you can get the Russians to help you, their rail and road systems are in pitiful shape, using different tracks then yours and requiring lenghty stops in order to transfer goods, and if these roads and railways are bombed the Moscovites arn't nearly as good in rebuilding them. Then you'd have to travel through several smaller Eurasian countries, each one as unlikely to help you as Turkey (and in fact many have USAF bases, meaning you'd be bombed long before you got in range of aircraft from Israel or Iraq). You are effectively cut off from oil from the ME, and within a few months your starving populations would be demanding peace.


After holding off the American military for awhile, the resources of this continent (including the massive mineral deposits throughout Russia) will be enough to effectively mobilize for their war effort. Our former super-power enemy, Russia, still has a massive military that can be utilized for a short time until the production levels of the European nations matches that of the US.
Russia is a sick old man, waving around a large rusty cane that's likely to break if it ever hits anything. Even if somehow you are able to mine its resources and get them through the logistical nightmare that is the Russian railway system after being bombed to oblivion, your factories will be under attack and operating below optimal standards; meanwhile the US is free to use the resources of their northern neighbor, process them in an industry free from bombing, and ship them without incident to the UK. Admit it, you would lose!

I lived in Europe for an ENTIRE YEAR, or didn't you read my other posts?

A whole YEAR? only 1 year? And you think that makes you an expert? Oh my God. That has got to be the most funniest thing you've said this whole thread.

Even if inter-ocean transportation is effective, the carrier groups necessary to provide protection to invasion forces would be easily targeted and destroyed.

How? All I've heard you state was the use of nukes. As we've stated before, if nukes are launched, Europe gets turned to glass. So how are you going to take out A carrier Battle Group?

Allow me to make this statement. Submarines are invincible. The reasons being that they give all the advantage to the agressor, and while they *can* be targeted and destroyed, the likelihood of this is very small.

Submarines are not invincible my friend. Not by a long shot. ASW is more advanced on the US/British/Canadian side than on the EU side.

*snip*.

lol

dude....

Here is a force comparison model from the net. Feel free to browse and compare forces and comment.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

Thanks my friend :)

yes if I was having this aurgument in real life, as soon as he said "down with the US gov blah blah blah...." I would'ev called him an idiot and ended it... anyway I don't think he would hold on to his opinion this long in real life because i already disproved his points, where here all he does keep stating his points..

We all have disproved his points so many times. Apparently he didn't learn anything from his father. He hasn't learned anything from history either.

And if he said down with the US Gov infront of me, he would've needed a mouthful of teeth. :D

lol

dude....

That's the best you can come up with? I guess I won this arguement. BTW: You may be 16 but apparently you don't know as much as you think you know. I've studied WWII in depth. It was a complete total war in every sense of the word and the US waged it alongside her allies. Care to prove me wrong?

The feeling isn't mutual. Though I must say you brought up some very good points. As of late our bomber fleet is only 171 active duty planes, not enough to hinder the transportation systems of Europe.

I see no sources -- provide them. Besides, we can bomb things with more than just a BUFF, Lancer, and a Spirit. In fact, the USAF's F-22 Raptor is one of those things. The USAF has a fighter/bomber variant, and the F-22 is semi-stealth -- just like the Lancer, only more stealthy. Also, as a poster previously mentioned, there is a fighter/bomber variant of the F-15 Eagle, and we have LOTS of those.

I had a source that showed that European steel production is of higher quality and outweighs that of the United States and Britain. But I lost it while compiling more sources.

I have a source that says that I am the ruler of the whole goddamned world.

And you really need not hate me, I'm not trying to kill anyone or piss on the constitution or ruin America or any of that crap. Me and all the other 3 million leftists in this country are just trying to show you that your boss is an asshole, and you should become your own boss (on the simplest level) So don't hate me.

I didn't say anything about Bush. You said it yourself, you want America to collapse.

Oh, this is precious, a communist preaching about individualism. HA!

It's unwarranted. And it's fair discussion actually, there is nothing wrong with leftism

Yes there is, but I don't hate people because of their political views. I've got a few friends who are communist, but they support America as a nation. You, on the other hand, wish it to fall.

so that you should hate me, and as a christian, you are supposed to be a socialist. Or at least someone who doesn't advocate capitalism because god thinks it's evil (I would know, I'm a christian too).

Uh, no? I am a capitalist because that allows people to reach their full potential. Capitalism is not evil, the abuses are. Communism, on the other hand, represses individual thought and achievement. Also, I may be a Christian, but I let people carry on their lives the way they wish to.

Sorry I lost my sources, I had them all here in my other post, but they got deleted or some crap.

Such as Democracy Now?

But I reinforce my current argument, that the production capabilities of Europe are more than able to mobilize for a war of this magnitude.

Simply pretending to erect a wall will not keep out invaders.

Though the US has better guns, they do not have control over the Eurasian landmass, which, ultimately will be more important in a conventional war.

Duh. However, it can be quickly established, but due to lack of time, and the fact it was gotten into plenty of times, I will not bother quite yet.

Though key locations can be targeted, Europe cannot be easily reduced to rubble.

Europe doesn't NEED to be reduced to rubble to be defeated.

After holding off the American military for awhile, the resources of this continent (including the massive mineral deposits throughout Russia) will be enough to effectively mobilize for their war effort.

Sorry, Europe actually doesn't have that many recourses left, as they've been there so long. It helps to be young.

Our former super-power enemy, Russia, still has a massive military that can be utilized for a short time until the production levels of the European nations matches that of the US.

Paper tiger.

So does anyone else think that in this supposed canadabritainunitedstates war vs the EU, Britain would be little more than a giant airforce and naval base, as the use of the British military would have little consequence as it is not superior to that of France or Germany, with the exception of British special forces (SAS)? It would be the US alone fighting?

Markets as the result of the Cut of Euro-American Trade

I would first like to point out the trading balance. Taken from the CIA World factbook, here is the percentage of imports and Exports of the United States:

Exports - partners:
Canada 23%, Mexico 13.6%, Japan 6.7%, UK 4.4%, China 4.3% (2004)

This demonstrates that cutting off the European markets will basically do nothing to the United States

Imports - partners:
Canada 17.1%, China 13.7%, Mexico 10.4%, Japan 8.8%, Germany 5.2% (2004)

This here demonstrates that the US is fairly independent of Europe. Should Europe cut trade, we really won't be affected. HOWEVER, Germany will lose a nice bit of trade, and since Germany and France are basically the economic legs of the EU, the EU will lose some money. Not much, but some. Unfortunately, BMW's will be a bit more expensive, but there's always the Mustang. :)


Let's take a look at Germany, however:

Exports - partners:
France 10.2%, US 8.8%, UK 8.2%, Italy 7.2%, Netherlands 6.3%, Belgium 5.7%, Austria 5.4%, Spain 5% (2004)

Conbined, Germany designates 17% of their exports to what would be the Anglo Empire. That's a sizable chunk, and would do some nasty damage. Lethal? No, no where near. Think of it as a broken foot.

Now, lets look at imports:

Imports - partners:
France 9.2%, Netherlands 8.7%, US 6.5%, Italy 6.1%, UK 5.8%, Belgium 5.8%, China 5.3%, Austria 4.3% (2004)

So, of all the imports Germany takes in, 12.3% of them are from what would be the Anglo Empire. Again, a sizable chunk of lost imports. Again, they'll survive, but think of it as a broken hand. :)


How about France?

Exports - partners:
Germany 15%, Spain 9.4%, UK 9.3%, Italy 9%, Belgium 7.2%, US 6.7% (2004)

So, of all the foreign markets, 16% of them are from the Anglo Empire. Nasty little ulcer, ain't it?

Imports - partners:
Germany 19.2%, Belgium 9.8%, Italy 8.8%, Spain 7.3%, UK 7%, Netherlands 6.7%, US 5.1% (2004)

How much of their imports are from the Anglos? 12.1%. Lucky for France, they made off better than Germany did, but not by much.


Now, there's one major flaw -- these are perents and not raw numbers. I'm sure you know where I'm going with this.

So does anyone else think that in this supposed canadabritainunitedstates war vs the EU, Britain would be little more than a giant airforce and naval base, as the use of the British military would have little consequence as it is not superior to that of France or Germany, with the exception of British special forces (SAS)? It would be the US alone fighting?

:rolleyes:

Why do people think its always the US Fighting alone? Oh brother that's rich. Canada will send forces. British will use its military might as well. This isn't going to be a huge naval and air engagement. The combined American and British Armies will take apart Europe.

The Combine Airforce will knock Europe out of the Airwar in less than a month's time. (we don't even have to destroy the airbases, just the planes)

The Combined Navy will blockade Europe and thus nothing will move by sea.

Control of Air and sea goes to the Alliance and thus will go victory. He who controls the sea and air will win the war.

:rolleyes:

Why do people think its always the US Fighting alone? Oh brother that's rich. Canada will send forces. British will use its military might as well. This isn't going to be a huge naval and air engagement. The combined American and British Armies will take apart Europe.

Canada doesn't have an army. or a military. If any country decided to attack us, we would have to fight back with our hockey sticks!

Canada doesn't have an army. or a military. If any country decided to attack us, we would have to fight back with our hockey sticks!

Actually Canada does have a military :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Why do people think its always the US Fighting alone? Oh brother that's rich. Canada will send forces. British will use its military might as well. This isn't going to be a huge naval and air engagement. The combined American and British Armies will take apart Europe.

The Combine Airforce will knock Europe out of the Airwar in less than a month's time. (we don't even have to destroy the airbases, just the planes)

The Combined Navy will blockade Europe and thus nothing will move by sea.

Control of Air and sea goes to the Alliance and thus will go victory. He who controls the sea and air will win the war.

But Britain's Armed Forces are small compared to France, Germany and even Australia. Britain has no "military might"

But Britain's Armed Forces are small compared to France, Germany and even Australia. Britain has no "military might"

When did that happen?

When did that happen?

Not all of a sudden...since 1945, with a great dip in the 70's and 80's, admittedly its increased recently, but compared to most of the G8, the UK seems to kid itself about how powerful it is militarily

Not all of a sudden...since 1945, with a great dip in the 70's and 80's, admittedly its increased recently, but compared to most of the G8, the UK seems to kid itself about how powerful it is militarily

What are you smoking?

here you go:

Statistics
British Army statistics
Personnel (Regular Army) 112,700
Personnel (Territorial Army) 40,000+
Main Battle Tanks 386 Challenger 2
Infantry fighting vehicles 575 Warrior
Armoured Personnel Carriers 4,000+
Artillery 400
Aircraft 290

mind you these are battle-hardened venterns, they are highly trained, not to mention their navy(brits love their damn boats)!

What are you smoking?

here you go:

Statistics
British Army statistics
Personnel (Regular Army) 112,700
Personnel (Territorial Army) 40,000+
Main Battle Tanks 386 Challenger 2
Infantry fighting vehicles 575 Warrior
Armoured Personnel Carriers 4,000+
Artillery 400
Aircraft 290

mind you these are battle-hardened venterns, they are highly trained, not to mention their navy(brits love their damn boats)!

is there a site for these stats as ive been looking for one for ages, link would be much appreciated...

Not all of a sudden...since 1945, with a great dip in the 70's and 80's, admittedly its increased recently, but compared to most of the G8, the UK seems to kid itself about how powerful it is militarilytrue, but....what matters most is the tridents...

from America...I prefer to go to war VS China than VS Britain...

and its all about the tridents

is there a site for these stats as ive been looking for one for ages, link would be much appreciated...

en.wikipedia.org

true, but....what matters most is the tridents...

from America...I prefer to go to war VS China than VS Britain...

and its all about the tridents
June 19, 2005
The secret codes arrived and were matched. The dual keys were inserted and the moment came when I was invited to press the button.

You may not have given much thought to the proper manner of initiating Armageddon. I gave the button a little stab as one might when pressing nine for an outside line. Be warned, reader, you need to press hard and long.

Perhaps it is wrong to be flippant about the dreadful destructive power that Britain keeps lurking under the waves 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. But the point is that nowadays nobody expects it to be used. That was the position when I visited the submarine nearly a decade ago.

The Soviet Union collapsed long ago. There is no threat from China. The new nuclear weapons states, from India to Israel, do not have the capability to hit us. Relations between Tony Blair and Jacques Chirac may be strained, but as yet we have no reason to fear a nuclear strike from la force de frappe.

So it seems rather surprising that according to some reports the government has decided to replace the Trident D5 missile and the submarines that carry it, at a cost of tens of billions of pounds.

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

---BTW I do not agree with this times columnist...

But Britain's Armed Forces are small compared to France, Germany and even Australia. Britain has no "military might"

What have you been smoking. Britain has the 2nd most powerful military in the world. When did they lose that status?

can we call it the united kingdom of camerica. please, it sounds so sleak and rich. anyway the one with america on their side.

No contest, US/Canada/Britain will win this war.

en.wikipedia.org

cheers

What have you been smoking. Britain has the 2nd most powerful military in the world. When did they lose that status?

since when do they have the 2nd most powerful military?

Britain, because the other side would have France.


The EU because the other side has Britain, a unloyal spy of the oposite. And the other side has France.

since when do they have the 2nd most powerful military?

well their navy is 2nd most powerful, their landforce is stong, and is the strongest in europe right now... but in the world? I think its more like US, China, then UK but again china has no navy thus they can't use their army... so in that line of thinking then yes...

since when do they have the 2nd most powerful military?

Just look at their antique carrier/planes versus the French one :D .

Just look at their antique carrier/planes versus the French one :D .

ahh, the US has super carriers(8-10 I think), UK has 1 I think and france has 0.... so I think UK has them there...

since when do they have the 2nd most powerful military?

Since the day the US's military took over the top spot from Britain :D

ahh, the US has super carriers(8-10 I think), UK has 1 I think and france has 0.... so I think UK has them there...

I think its 12 since I thought we had 12 Carrier Groups.

ahh, the US has super carriers(8-10 I think), UK has 1 I think and france has 0.... so I think UK has them there...


Here are the facts, HMS Illustrious versus Ch De Gaulle. You allready see the difference of 25 year in age just atthe look. Contrary to the Anglo Saxon internetlegend, France has a more modern and larger army then the UK. Airforce, nukes, quality of troops/training..in allmost everything the UK is suropassed. Equal ballance in subs, but France has for this moment the latest (UK has a new one in a few years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

I think its 12 since I thought we had 12 Carrier Groups.
oh well then you are right, well actually in a carrier group there could be two S.C. so... I don't do my research... I will be back in a sec with numbers.

oh well then you are right, well actually in a carrier group there could be two S.C. so... I don't do my research... I will be back in a sec with numbers.

US has 10/12 from wich 7 200.000HP monsters. But the UK.... :rolleyes:

Water displacement 20.000 tons versus 40.000, CDG is nuclear powered, Illustrious not.

Aircraft carriers are the major strategic arm of the Navy. They put U.S. air power within reach of most land-based military power. The US Navy's carriers are much larger and more powerful than those of the rest of the world. See also: List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy and List of escort aircraft carriers of the United States Navy.

* Kitty Hawk class (1 ship)
* Enterprise — Norfolk, Virginia
* John F. Kennedy — Mayport Naval Station, Florida
* Nimitz class (9 ships, 1 under construction)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_navy)

Nimitz is S.C. and i think enterprise and kennedy are too, not sure about kitty hawk..

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier

Supercarrier classes

* United States (USA, 1950s) - Single-unit laid down, cancelled along with four others
* Forrestal class (USA, 1955) - Four unit class, all decommissioned
* Kitty Hawk class (USA, 1961) - Three unit class, two decommissioned, one active
* Enterprise (USA, 1961) - Single-unit class, still active
* John F. Kennedy (USA, 1968) - Single-unit class, a modified Kitty Hawk design, still active
* Nimitz class (USA, 1975) - Final unit (of ten) scheduled for completion in 2009, all units still active
* Ulyanovsk (USSR, 1990s) - Two units cancelled after partial completion
* CVN-21 (USA, 2013) - Two units pending

Here are the facts, HMS Illustrious versus Ch De Gaulle. You allready see the difference of 25 year in age just atthe look. Contrary to the Anglo Saxon internetlegend, France has a more modern and larger army then the UK. Airforce, nukes, quality of troops/training..in allmost everything the UK is suropassed. Equal ballance in subs, but France has for this moment the latest (UK has a new one in a few years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

One minor problem, the De Gauelle is in a state of disrepair and I think someone here said they sold it to Brazil?

do you know whats really funny? I live in Newport, RI and we got 2 S.C. just sitting there in mothballs, our mothball fleet has more powe than the french navy!!1

One minor problem, the De Gauelle is in a state of disrepair and I think someone here said they sold it to Brazil?

Wrong, it is on patrol in the Indian Ocean at this moment. You talk about the old Foch, named Sao Paulo now, a sistership of CDC will be launched in 2006, in service 2009.

Here are the facts, HMS Illustrious versus Ch De Gaulle. You allready see the difference of 25 year in age just atthe look. Contrary to the Anglo Saxon internetlegend, France has a more modern and larger army then the UK. Airforce, nukes, quality of troops/training..in allmost everything the UK is suropassed. Equal ballance in subs, but France has for this moment the latest (UK has a new one in a few years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

Thank you, my points exactly

Wrong, it is on patrol in the Indian Ocean at this moment. You talk about the old Foch, named Sao Paulo now, a sistership of CDC will be launched in 2006, in service 2009.


okay okay france has one, somewhat powerful S.C., with less tech, and AWS and such.... also that class can't hold anywhere near the amont of attack craft and american S.C. can hold...

I thought the UK had 3 aircraft carriers, with 2 super carriers under order for 2007-8?

One minor problem, the De Gauelle is in a state of disrepair and I think someone here said they sold it to Brazil?

Here pictures of the old "Foch", at time it was alllready more modern then Illustrious:http://home.casema.nl/falcons/Saopaulo.html

I thought the UK had 3 aircraft carriers, with 2 super carriers under order for 2007-8?
http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html
Looks more like a modern version of heir todays VTOL ship Illustrious then a supercarrier or a small version of it like CDC.

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/1971.html
that carrier looks pertty.... not to mention your forgetting they have the US on their side, okay you guys got what 10 reg carries and 1 S.C.? we have 10-12 S.C. on active service plus i don't know how many regs... so we win?

okay okay france has one, somewhat powerful S.C., with less tech, and AWS and such.... also that class can't hold anywhere near the amont of attack craft and american S.C. can hold...

Nobody disputes the difference between US and France, but Britain is the worst of the 3, talkling about old tech...

Here are the facts, HMS Illustrious versus Ch De Gaulle. You allready see the difference of 25 year in age just atthe look. Contrary to the Anglo Saxon internetlegend, France has a more modern and larger army then the UK. Airforce, nukes, quality of troops/training..in allmost everything the UK is suropassed. Equal ballance in subs, but France has for this moment the latest (UK has a new one in a few years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

You just shot yourself in the foot with this link. There are 3 British Carriers in operation according to the link you have provided. The French only have ONE carrier in operation. 3-1 is not good odds not to mention the fact that the US has 12 carriers at its disposal so that brings it to 15-1 on carriers. I haven't seen odds like that since the end of WWII when the US was out producing Japan in carriers.

do you know whats really funny? I live in Newport, RI and we got 2 S.C. just sitting there in mothballs, our mothball fleet has more powe than the french navy!!1

That is funny and yes, the Kittyhawk is a super class carrier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Stennis_HMS_Illustrious.jpg

This link shows the enormous difference between what the RN is operating and what the USN is operating

that carrier looks pertty.... not to mention your forgetting they have the US on their side, okay you guys got what 10 reg carries and 1 S.C.? we have 10-12 S.C. on active service plus i don't know how many regs... so we win?

12 Amphib ships with aircraft. which are small carriers in their own right. So 12 S.C + 15 small carriers! No contest on carrier actions.

You just shot yourself in the foot with this link. There are 3 British Carriers in operation according to the link you have provided. The French only have ONE carrier in operation. 3-1 is not good odds not to mention the fact that the US has 12 carriers at its disposal so that brings it to 15-1 on carriers. I haven't seen odds like that since the end of WWII when the US was out producing Japan in carriers.

There are 4 if you include HMS Ocean, which although is primarily a helicopter/landing ship can accomidate up to 15+ harriers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Stennis_HMS_Illustrious.jpg

This link shows the enormous difference between what the RN is operating and what the USN is operating

The one on the right is the Illustrious incase you didnt know ;)

Haha i didnt voted cuz i wouldnt givea flying fu** when criminal "democracy" and "Freedom" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: lovers kill each other! :cool: :D

Haha i didnt voted cuz i wouldnt givea flying fu** when criminal "democracy" and "Freedom" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: lovers kill each other! :cool: :D

okay democracy and freedom lovers? GOVe move to N.Korea and tell us what its like......

okay democracy and freedom lovers? GOVe move to N.Korea and tell us what its like......

haha :sniper:

I just checked something and learned that we still have 2 battleships on inactive reserve. Amazing what you learn when you research something :D

do you know whats really funny? I live in Newport, RI and we got 2 S.C. just sitting there in mothballs, our mothball fleet has more powe than the french navy!!1


I live near Bremerton Washington where there are many many carriers sitting in mothballs just waiting to be recommisioned

I think its 12 since I thought we had 12 Carrier Groups.

Last time I checked there are 12 active supercarrier groups.

Canada doesn't have an army. or a military. If any country decided to attack us, we would have to fight back with our hockey sticks!

For about 5 minutes. Then a crushing blow from combined US and British forces would take care of them.

For about 5 minutes. Then a crushing blow from combined US and British forces would take care of them.

The Canadian defeat would be a farce! The Hockey Stick wielding divisions would run away only to hanve legions of penguins and polar bears come tear the US and UK a new one :(

I guess we made our point since those that think the EU will win haven't comeback yet.

All hail the victorious US/British/Canadian Alliance :D

I would have USB over EU. United States and Canada have a wealth of resources and man power and Britain has shown itself a country that "never gives up". Truly... they still call the States the colonies :D

I would have USB over EU. United States and Canada have a wealth of resources and man power and Britain has shown itself a country that "never gives up". Truly... they still call the States the colonies :D

Damn Limeys. Won't they learn we're no longer colonies? I guess we'll have to teach them a lesson again boys. :D

I guess we made our point since those that think the EU will win haven't comeback yet.

All hail the victorious US/British/Canadian Alliance :D

Indeed, chalk this up to a rare occurance in NS, a victory through the use of logic and reasoning :D :D

since when *Britain has* the 2nd most powerful military?
Since the day the US's military took over the top spot from Britain :D
The US took the top spot after WWII...from Germany.

in my opinion Britain was not the most powerful military before WWII...

other great military power was russia.

The US took the top spot after WWII...some would say that it was somewhat shared with the soviets...
Some might say that, yes. :p

Some might say that, yes. :pyes, but they could not keep up with the US...

money is the nerve of war...

money is the nerve of war...
Indeed, which is why a war of Europe against the US would never actually happen.
The most that could happen is some sort of local conflict where both support a different side.
I go EU anyway, because....I would fight on their side.
And I am made of titanium-reinforced stainless steel!

When you say you majored in history and politics, Im assuming your a grown man. Your on a internet forum argueing about war. Get a life. dude.....


Does anyone else find this bitterly ironic? I sure do.


I will let you know I am 16.


Never mind. Explanation found.

Indeed, chalk this up to a rare occurance in NS, a victory through the use of logic and reasoning :D :D

Amazing what logic can do isn't it? Some people on here just don't understand the fine art of Tactics!

You just shot yourself in the foot with this link. There are 3 British Carriers in operation according to the link you have provided. The French only have ONE carrier in operation. 3-1 is not good odds not to mention the fact that the US has 12 carriers at its disposal so that brings it to 15-1 on carriers. I haven't seen odds like that since the end of WWII when the US was out producing Japan in carriers.

Hmm, just checked it, like allways, Corneliu's wishfull thinking is different then reality. A VTOL ship is not a carrier and 40.000 tons of displacement is the double of the only one UK ship in service, the obsolete and old Illustrious...it is even a non nuclear powered one. BTW compare a Harrier of the 1970's with a Rafale that went in service 30 years later... it is like comparing a spitfire with a F-16.

If he shot himself in the foot, you shot yourself in the head, better check twice next time. :D

Hmm, just checked it, like allways, Corneliu's wishfull thinking is different then reality. A VTOL ship is not a carrier and 40.000 tons of displacement is the double of the only one UK ship in service, the obsolete and old Illustrious...it is even a non nuclear powered one. BTW compare a Harrier of the 1970's with a Rafale that went in service 30 years later... it is like comparing a spitfire with a F-16.

If he shot himself in the foot, you shot yourself in the head, better check twice next time. :D

Don't matter anyway, and according to everything I'm reading, its an aircraft carrier! :rolleyes:

The US has TWELVE supercarriers so it really doesn't matter what the British have. We still out gun the EU navy so it really doesn't matter.

Don't matter anyway, and according to everything I'm reading, its an aircraft carrier! :rolleyes:

The US has TWELVE supercarriers so it really doesn't matter what the British have. We still out gun the EU navy so it really doesn't matter.

yes good point, the british navy, although smaller than the US is still considered the 2nd in strength world wide, air power is great and does provide you strength. but there are also many other factors, subs, destroyers, and missle crusiers, Missles cruisers provide for a shield against air craft, I think the US gave aegis to the UK(not sure), and if we did they would be invincable(metaphoriacally speaking). even if they don't have aegis they still have some of the most advanced military hardware in the world, US is ahead of them but compared to france they are lightyears...

Don't matter anyway, and according to everything I'm reading, its an aircraft carrier! :rolleyes:

The US has TWELVE supercarriers so it really doesn't matter what the British have. We still out gun the EU navy so it really doesn't matter.12 super-carriers? you could have 64 super-duper super-carriers...and still it would not matter if you are not 100% sure of the exact coordonates of each and everyone of their nuklear subs.

12 super-carriers? you could have 64 super-duper super-carriers...and still it would not matter if you are not 100% sure of the exact coordonates of each and everyone of their nuklear subs.

Back to nukes again? Didn't we already fight this battle with logic already? Yes I'm sure we did. Alwell, I guess I'll repeat myself with numbers so its easier to follow.

1. They launch nukes.
2. Satellites detect nukes
3. US Launches nukes
4. Europe is radioactive glass.

Sorry O.D. but you apparently don't realize that no nation would be that dumb to use nukes knowing the otherside has more nukes than you do. THe EU does not have that many nukes and the US has thousands.

Still want to hold on to the use of nukes arguement to defeat the US/Canada/British alliance? The only people that'll truly get hurt would be Europe.

We have Luxembourg.

And remeber: the EU is going be a lot bigger in the future.

Thus: I vote US of B. :)

Allright, assuming there would be no nukes involved...
The "allies" (as people can't agree on a name for them...) begin by sending out 95% of their navy against the EU. The EU sacrifices France (who needs them?) and pulls back inland.
Their defence holds well, until the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and the rest of asia backstab the EU, and take control of Eurasia. Now, the "allies" are attacked by the Asians, who by now have a ludicrouse navy. (Just look at what chiana is doing right now.)
After a few months of fighting, the "allies" pull back, and the Asians attack. Within three years, the few who survive are now slaves of the Asians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USS_Stennis_HMS_Illustrious.jpg

This link shows the enormous difference between what the RN is operating and what the USN is operating

I still find that the pic in the link above shows best the British Carrier and the American Carrier. Naval power however would be hardly decisive in this hypothetical battle

Allright, assuming there would be no nukes involved...
The "allies" (as people can't agree on a name for them...) begin by sending out 95% of their navy against the EU. The EU sacrifices France (who needs them?) and pulls back inland.
Their defence holds well, until the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and the rest of asia backstab the EU, and take control of Eurasia. Now, the "allies" are attacked by the Asians, who by now have a ludicrouse navy. (Just look at what chiana is doing right now.)
After a few months of fighting, the "allies" pull back, and the Asians attack. Within three years, the few who survive are now slaves of the Asians.

hmmmmmm....

I still find that the pic in the link above shows best the British Carrier and the American Carrier. Naval power however would be hardly decisive in this hypothetical battle

Your right because the EU navy won't even exist after day 2 so its not important. Just important enough to blockade the EU and 3 carrier groups can do that.

This is a moronic conversation about a war that will never come to pass. America may be at odds with Europe but when it all falls into place the good ol' US of A will back Europe and opt for peace with our brothers in arms. Though if we in the states can invent some sure plan way to defeat nuculear arms than it would all fall down to how many nukes the US has, and who doesn't want to join us. Of course Europe would bitch about it at first, but given an opurunity to become a colonial power, however limited, would take the offer to join the US. As for Asia, China's a sure bet to resist to the bitter end, but the rest of asia will fold like a paper dragon.

All that is needed is a sure way defense against nuclear attacks and the world would fall back to colonialism and ultimatly unity, even if it must be forced. All that is need is the perverbial sheild against the nuclear spear.

This is a moronic conversation about a war that will never come to pass. America may be at odds with Europe but when it all falls into place the good ol' US of A will back Europe and opt for peace with our brothers in arms. Though if we in the states can invent some sure plan way to defeat nuculear arms than it would all fall down to how many nukes the US has, and who doesn't want to join us. Of course Europe would bitch about it at first, but given an opurunity to become a colonial power, however limited, would take the offer to join the US. As for Asia, China's a sure bet to resist to the bitter end, but the rest of asia will fold like a paper dragon.

All that is needed is a sure way defense against nuclear attacks and the world would fall back to colonialism and ultimatly unity, even if it must be forced. All that is need is the perverbial sheild against the nuclear spear.

*cough* its purely a conversation about "a war that will never come to pass" so stop taking it so seriously before you fall of that high horse youve climbed up on

Draconis Federation: You certainly have alot of hope in humanity... I very greatly doubt that it will come out nearly as nice as that, every country putting its own agenda and petty hatreds behinds themselves.

We have Luxembourg.

And remeber: the EU is going be a lot bigger in the future.

Thus: I vote US of B. :)

Well, well, Haken Rider at last in a General topic :fluffle:
Yeah, since France can nuke every US redneck alone, the question of a 100 times equal destruction does not stand. The US is quite stupid in this, since the other powers can destroy it one time, a multiple destruction does not stand. BTW, I like the Poetin dessicion and the one of France to program US targets (again for Russia, new for France), so everybody is sure of mutual death again. Feels more safe.

well if nukes were involved, europe would be screwed (Britain would launch all its nukes at Europe, France would launch nukes at Britain). end result, both Britain and Europe mainland is glass, and the United States are sat there thinking, "ok bob, what the hell just happened?"

without nukes, Britain has the best trained army in Europe (debatably the best army in the world) We have one of the most powerful navies, our air force isn't exactly top of anything :p lol but still, combine that with the super power of the US which is RIGHT NOW a military super power, Europe isn't a military anything. European countries would NOT be able to work together coherently in a military force. Britain and the US speak the same language for a start, and could easily launch massive land attacks using the UK as the forward base. (and i would pay real money to see europe try to conquer Britain mainland, you would not stand a chance in hell)

oh and i only just saw this post, but someone earlier mentioned Germany being able to take the US in a 1on1 battle? dont make me laugh out loud, you wouldn't even be able to take on Britain in a 1on1 war. Your military is laughable since WW2, your technology in warfare is beyond laughable. And you only just became a single nation, you would get your ass handed to you before you could say "Fir...crap"

yeah, since France can nuke every US redneck alone, the question of a 100 times equal destruction does not stand. The US is quite stupid in this, since the other powers can destroy it one time, a multiple destruction does not stand. BTW, I like the Poetin dessicion and the one of France to program US targets (again for Russia, new for France), so everybody is sure of mutual death again. Feels more safe.

You do realise that as soon as America realises a single nuke has even been fired in its general direction from france, it will launch every single f*cking nuke it has at you, every single one. America is a country that will not die without a fight, there is no doubts in their military. as soon as their satelites or radar or whatever point out "France" "Nukes" "US Target" you can kiss France and most of Europe goodbye. Also when Britain realised that their closest ally is under nuclear attack, it will also fire nuclear weapons at their aggresser, so while all your nukes are flying at America, France will have nukes landing ALOT quicker from Britain while the US tries to shoot down the nukes on route to them.

12 super-carriers? you could have 64 super-duper super-carriers...and still it would not matter if you are not 100% sure of the exact coordonates of each and everyone of their nuklear subs.

We already did this OD, the only power with SBNs is France, and she has a total of FOUR. If there was ever to be a war between the Anglo-Americans and the EU, you can bet your clueless ass that those four would have already been tracked and ready to pumped with several dozen torpedos and depth charges before they ever get the chance to fire.

Allright, assuming there would be no nukes involved...
The "allies" (as people can't agree on a name for them...) begin by sending out 95% of their navy against the EU. The EU sacrifices France (who needs them?) and pulls back inland.
Their defence holds well, until the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and the rest of asia backstab the EU, and take control of Eurasia. Now, the "allies" are attacked by the Asians, who by now have a ludicrouse navy. (Just look at what chiana is doing right now.)
After a few months of fighting, the "allies" pull back, and the Asians attack. Within three years, the few who survive are now slaves of the Asians.

China doesn't have a navy, just a collection of brown-water boats and a couple of larger, outdated destroyers and frigates. Of the Asian powers only Japan and Russia have true navies, and A) Russia can barely manage to keep their ships from rusting at their piers, much less risk open combat with the USN/RN B) Japan's is too small to do much damage against the British, much less American navies. Besides, how exactly will they invade the EU much less America? Dig a tunnel through the center of the Earth and pop out the other end? :D

We already did this OD, the only power with SBNs is France, and ...show us the link...where it says that you proved that anyone is able to track these subs... ...the only power with SBNs is France.. UK and russia do have pretty good subs...that those four would have already been tracked and ready to pumped with several dozen torpedos and depth charges before they ever get the chance to fire.sweet dreams are made of these...

show us the link...where it says that you proved that anyone is able to track these subs...

Ever heard of something called the SOSUS net?

UK and russia do have pretty good subs

The UK, yeah.

Russia? Well, they did, but every one of them would require a major overhaul to even put to sea now...and overhall that would break the bank for Russia. You have to remember, Russia may have a larger military right now, but they're dirt-shit poor since the spending campaign Reagan sent the USSR on in the 80's.

sweet dreams are made of these...

Witty, but that song was old twenty years ago.

Didn't we already fight this battle with logic already? ..and what was the logical result?...in your opinionBack to nukes again? If there is a war between USA and France...the weather forecast is 95% chances of radioactive rain.

If... if ever there is war between USA and France...Nukes are very much part of the equation.
Im talking about real life...not a Kiddie fantasy scenarios "what if countries A and B go to war but no nukes allowed..."

In real life you cannot pre-write the rules..like if it was a Risk game.

and what was the logical result?...in your opinionIf there is a war between USA and France...the weather forecast is 95% chances of radioactive rain.

If... if ever there is war between USA and France...Nukes are very much part of the equation.
Im talking about real life...not a Kiddie fantasy scenarios "what if countries A and B go to war but no nukes allowed..."

In real life you cannot pre-write the rules..like if it was a Risk game.

The rules were written long before you were born. MAD means no nukes.

Of course, in the case of France, nukes are inherent to prevent invasion (they have a standing policy that says "You try to invade and we nuke you". Along with several other assumptions, mostly ones that would give major advantages to the US if we didn't make them, we assume this policy is no longer in effect). Otherwise, though, no one is crazy enough to use them.

The rules were written long before you were born. MAD means no nukes.

Of course, in the case of France, nukes are inherent to prevent invasion (they have a standing policy that says "You try to invade and we nuke you". Along with several other assumptions, mostly ones that would give major advantages to the US if we didn't make them, we assume this policy is no longer in effect). Otherwise, though, no one is crazy enough to use them.yes... nukes are to prevent invasion...that is the case for France, NK, Iran, Israel, even China.

Nukes are the ultimate defensive weapon.

that why the USA could have 144 super-duper super Carriers...still...they are useless against France or UK.

im not sure if the new UK subs are as difficult to track than the French ones...but I assume they are as good.

Well, well, Haken Rider at last in a General topic :fluffle:

Your telling me

Yeah, since France can nuke every US redneck alone, the question of a 100 times equal destruction does not stand.

Do you have proof that it wont? I know the US has a couple thousand nukes lying around not to mention about a dozen Ohio Class Balistic Missile Submarines so what proof do you have?

The US is quite stupid in this, since the other powers can destroy it one time, a multiple destruction does not stand.

*sighs* There are only 2 powers on Europe excluding Russia and Britain. France and Germany. France won't be able to withstand a full fledged assault and Germany can be just starved to death.

BTW, I like the Poetin dessicion and the one of France to program US targets (again for Russia, new for France), so everybody is sure of mutual death again. Feels more safe.

Europe would be utterly destroyed while the US will not be utterly destroyed. It comes down to numbers dude. Since no nukes is likely to be used, this won't come to pass. Europeans are so stupid in this.

and what was the logical result?...in your opinionIf there is a war between USA and France...the weather forecast is 95% chances of radioactive rain.

Result? No nukes will be used because if nukes are used, Europe is screwed.

If... if ever there is war between USA and France...Nukes are very much part of the equation.
Im talking about real life...not a Kiddie fantasy scenarios "what if countries A and B go to war but no nukes allowed..."

We're talking real life here too! No nukes will be used because of M.A.D. France does not have the type of hitting power that the US has. France will know this as does the US. It all boils down to the Reasonable Man Theory. (gotta love political classes :p) If France launces a single nuke towards the US, France won't be a country within an hour. Europe won't be a continent either for that matter. That is real life buddy. Unless France truly does want to go out in a blaze of glory, I'd be more than willing to ablige them with a mushroom cloud over Paris and other places except for Normandy :p

In real life you cannot pre-write the rules..like if it was a Risk game.

:rolleyes: MAD = No nukes.

Europe would be utterly destroyed while the US will not be utterly destroyed. It comes down to numbers dude.how many French Nukes do you think can be delivered to US?

France will be destroyed? of course.

will Germany or UK be destroyed? I dont think so...because they would be neutral (and would stay neutral unless attacked)

... That is real life buddy. Unless France truly does want to go out in a blaze of glory...in your imagination...france is the only thing going in a Blaze of Glory?

how many French Nukes do you think can be delivered to US?

France will be destroyed? of course.

will Germany or UK be destroyed? I dont think so...because they would be neutral (and would stay neutral unless attacked)

*points to topic of this thread* Britain will by no means be neutral. They'll launch nukes too and since we're talking about the European Union as a whole here, there goes Europe.

US will come through just fine. I don't know how many nukes they have but I do know it isn't as many as the US has. It takes money to make and keep them functional. The US has a sizable nuclear force from land based ICBMs and SLBM! The only thing France has is Land ICBMs since thier ballistic missile boats are in disrepair.

in your imagination...france is the only thing going in a Blaze of Glory?

Germany, Italy and any other EU nation will also go up in a blaze of Glory if France wants to be very idiotic and suicidal to launch its nukes at the US.

Interesting idea. The United States of Britian is a somewhat scary concept...whilst I have no irk with the American people, their government does unsettle me. The US military is more then fearsome in size...but at risk of illiciting the no doubt fervent wrath of its supporters...lacks the discipline and does not make full use of the advantages afforded to it by sustained high levels of funding. The British squaddie is clearly underfunded, but has the edge with regards command effectiveness due to a disciplined military training (proven effective throughout history). If both accepted eachothers' strengths and weaknesses and operated properly together...what a meaty force! :sniper:

If such a conflict were to occur (about as unlikely as it gets....I hope), I don't think the UK would necessarily side with the US or EU...we would probably get very upset....swear a lot and use our diplomatic skills to try and patch the gap so we can have our continued state of ubertrade with both parties :)

In any case...such a military alliance would probably beat the EU (unless they got allies like China of course), but there is no way we could occupy for any length of time (note Britain no longer has a militarily sustained Empire).

P.S. Incidentally, without wishing to patronise...it does wind me up the many Americans refer to Britain and England as if they were the same....England is a part of Great Britain, and Great Britain along with Northern Ireland forms the United Kingdom....you seldom hear us describe all US citizens as Californians when they might be from Maine!) Someone also said the Britain, Austrailia and Canada are the same country...NO!...We all share the Queen as our Head of State along with many other DIFFERENT countries.

yes... nukes are to prevent invasion...that is the case for France, NK, Iran, Israel, even China.

Nukes are the ultimate defensive weapon.

that why the USA could have 144 super-duper super Carriers...still...they are useless against France or UK.

im not sure if the new UK subs are as difficult to track than the French ones...but I assume they are as good.

You aren't too intelligent, are you?

The US has enough SSBNs to blanket Europe in nuclear fires within a half-hour of the launch order. France, however, would take hours to do so.

Germany, Italy and any other EU nation will also go up in a blaze of Glory if France wants to be very idiotic and suicidal to launch its nukes at the US.
as I stated 2 post above...Germany, UK, Italy and other nations would declare themselves neutral ...(and stay neutral unless attacked)

You aren't too intelligent, are you?

The US has enough SSBNs to blanket Europe in nuclear fires within a half-hour of the launch order. France, however, would take hours to do so.and you just proved you are way too smart for me. :D

it would be pretty stupid to nuke anyone really......also many european countries (as well as the US) have missile silos( or whatever) in many other countries...france and UK have bases in antarctica or..the arctic..either one...meh

You aren't too intelligent, are you?

No he's not :D

The US has enough SSBNs to blanket Europe in nuclear fires within a half-hour of the launch order. France, however, would take hours to do so.

Very Very accurate statement. *hands you a cookie*

as I stated 2 post above...Germany, UK, Italy and other nations would declare themselves neutral ...(and stay neutral unless attacked)

Your not comprehending. WE are talking about the United States of Britain vs. EU.

This implies that the European Union and the alliance of US/Britain/Canada are at war. Get a clue.

it would be pretty stupid to nuke anyone really......also many European countries (as well as the US) have missile silos( or whatever) in many other countries...France and UK have bases in Antarctica or..the arctic..either one...mehIndeed...France and UK most likely do have underground nuke proof silos at secret overseas locations.

just in case on day sub tracking technology becomes reliable.

Indeed...France and UK most likely do have underground nuke proof silos at secret overseas locations.

...you mean i am rite?........... :D wahoo.....thats 4 days in a row i said something remotely inteligent.....me go play now :D

just in case on day sub tracking technology becomes reliable.

There is a system already in use that tracks everything! Its called SOSUS! Have a nice day.

...you mean i am rite?....Yes you are.

Silos have to be:

#1 very secret location
#2 far from urban areas. (BTW this is not going to save European cities)

both UK and France have thousands of places like that in far away places...islands and other ex colonies.

Indeed...France and UK most likely do have underground nuke proof silos at secret overseas locations.

just in case on day sub tracking technology becomes reliable.

Submarine tracking already is reliable. Look up the SOSUS net. I guarentee you we already know where every one of France's four nuclear subs are. I also guarentee you that we could get a virtually un-detectable Los Angelos class within firing range long before any Europeon leader would decide to resort to nukes. Orders? If the captain hears the French flooding missile tubes, take the fucker out.

France is suddenly and quite effectivily castrated.

And no one has underground nuke proof silos considering the US has penetrating nuclear missiles now (ever read about those nuclear bunker busters Bush was having orgasms over a few years ago?).

Yes you are.

Silos have to be:

#1 very secret location
#2 far from urban areas. (BTW this is not going to save European cities)

both UK and France have thousands of places like that in far away places...islands and other ex colonies.

Making things up won't help you.

Yes you are.

Silos have to be:

#1 very secret location
#2 far from urban areas. (BTW this is not going to save European cities)

both UK and France have thousands of places like that in far away places...islands and other ex colonies.

i saw one on holiday :D

The American Diasporat]

France is suddenly and quite effectivily castrated.





.......so what is the point in france?......what is the point in anything.........excuse me i just have to wind the cranck handle of my computer

please no nothing more to do with america , we have prime minister who is bushes poodle already. Invite canada, mongolia, anyone but the states to be on our side, we still eating the spam left over from ww2 that they left, thats good enough reason as as far as im concerned.. join with europe blow up every macdonalds and let america be allied with anyone but us. just call us anyone who thinks america sucks alliance

Submarine tracking already is reliable. Look up the SOSUS net. I guarentee you we already know where every one of France's four nuclear subs are. I also guarentee you that we could get a virtually un-detectable Los Angelos class within firing range long before any Europeon leader would decide to resort to nukes. Orders? If the captain hears the French flooding missile tubes, take the fucker out.

France is suddenly and quite effectivily castrated.

And no one has underground nuke proof silos considering the US has penetrating nuclear missiles now (ever read about those nuclear bunker busters Bush was having orgasms over a few years ago?).
your second "guarentee" is actually accurate (US subs are extremely stealth)


your first "guarentee" is worthless.

i am not ready to Attack France because you can "guarentee" you know where all the Subs are...AND where all the dummies are.

BTW its "Los Angeles"

your second "guarentee" is actually accurate (US subs are extremely stealth)

Yes they are!

your first "guarentee" is worthless.

So you don't know what SOSUS is then apparently. Well, your credibility in this thread just went down a few more notches.

i am not ready to Attack France because you can "guarentee" you know where all the Subs are...AND where all the dummies are.

*yawns* we know where every submarine that plows the atlantic is at.

please no nothing more to do with america , we have prime minister who is bushes poodle already. Invite canada, mongolia, anyone but the states to be on our side, we still eating the spam left over from ww2 that they left, thats good enough reason as as far as im concerned.. join with europe blow up every macdonalds and let america be allied with anyone but us. just call us anyone who thinks america sucks alliance
I can feel your pain Bro.

me too I am personally disgraced to be assosiated to the name "George Bush"

I can feel your pain Bro.

me too I am personally disgraced to be assosiated to the name "George Bush"

I think everyone with a brain is quite embarrassed by that. Unfortunate.

erm, british peeps like me are part of the EU. So basically it'd be civil war (since when has war been civil?) i'd go on to the battlefield and id be like take that you eu *expletative* and i'd shoot myself, then i'd shout hurray.

I think everyone with a brain is quite embarrassed by that. Unfortunate.
fyi bush sicks

Yes they are!



So you don't know what SOSUS is then apparently. Well, your credibility in this thread just went down a few more notches.



*yawns* we know where every submarine that plows the atlantic is at.

We seem to be discussing US and French nuke subs and forgetting that Britain has a powerful fleet of Nuclear Subs

We seem to be discussing US and French nuke subs and forgetting that Britain has a powerful fleet of Nuclear Subs

That is amazing but O.D. here apparently thinks that US and Britain cant track submarines. We can via a thing called SOSUS!

It's hypothetical because the UK would tear itself in two trying to decide whether or not to leave the EU and the the economic ties would take so long to undo that the UK and the EU declaring war would instantly crash the economies of both nations, rendering them harmless and actual war impossible.

If the UK had to vote on whether to stay in the EU right now, it would be about 60/40 in favour of staying. However, if the Eurosceptics managed to advance to the point of actually winning a referendum, the UK would probably split up because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are much more pro-EU than people in England.

You'd then have little England, surrounded by a very powerful EU (which would intergrate and advance more without England slowing it down) and not only would the EU be bitter with England for leaving but our closes ally, the US would never allow us to become anything more than a US territory.

The English (not UK) economy would have to heavily liberalise, removing all welfare systems (like the NHS and benefits) in order to remain competetive and this would inexorably mean a sharp decline in living standards in England which would be made all the more depressing by the exodus of migration to EU states with higher living standards.

The UK regaining it's "sovereignty" would have, ironically, the opposite effect. Joining the US wouldn't work because while we'd have to obey US laws and pay US taxes, there wouldn't be any English Congressmen or Senators and you'd never get an English President. It would be the ultimate historical irony; taxation without representation.

That is amazing but O.D. here apparently thinks that US and Britain cant track submarines. We can via a thing called SOSUS!

...WE can track submarines?...without hiding tiny welsh men on them with a phone?........wow...the marvels of science

...WE can track submarines?...without hiding tiny welsh men on them with a phone?........wow...the marvels of science

Yes we can track submarines. Its called SOSUS. We knew precisely where every soviet submarine was at during the cold war. And couple that with our own submarines and those of Britain, the EU subs won't stand a chance to do anything.

Yes we can track submarines. Its called SOSUS. We knew precisely where every soviet submarine was at during the cold war. And couple that with our own submarines and those of Britain, the EU subs won't stand a chance to do anything.

i see.....and...britain has this?......this..sosus?

i see.....and...britain has this?......this..sosus?

They help us run it.

They help us run it.


:eek: yay were wanted

:eek: yay were wanted
yes you are.....

ok some people aren't getting this(just got done reading thread), this is a hypothetical...

EU on one side and USB(United States, Britain, Canada(mayby australia)) on the other....



Also people stop bring up nukes every five posts, it won't happen we got a thing called MAD... also at most the EU would destroy maybe maybe!! 5-10 cities, while the US has the power to get every sqaure inch. It won't happend EU leaders aren't dumb.

so i boils down to the point that they would be fighting a defensive war and histroy has proven that you cannot win a defensive war(you can just drag it out)...

Someone here probably doesn't know that the US is spying?

Jibea, the US has the worlds best army and navy and Airforce. It won't take long to establish air superiority and it won't take long to establish a beach head. We don't need to cut across France to take them out. The US will take Germany in less time than it did to take Paris and less than it took the US to take Baghdad.

Not best, just most tecknalogically advanced. WE spread our finances over all areas. Plus, 2 years we have lasers and rail tanks. hehehe. :D

Also people stop bring up nukes every five posts, it won't happen....nukes are part of the equation...
true strategists have to be ready for every scenario good or bad...
amateur kids prepare only for best case scenario
also at most the EU would destroy maybe maybe!! 5-10 cities...LOL...we are not talking Mexico here.
the UK alone has the potential to destroy the largest 100 cities.

nukets are part of the ecuation...
true strategists have to be ready for every scenariogood or bad...

True. However, you also have to take into account, what can your enemy do to you. Its fine that you have nukes but how many does the other side have. That is the question. Do you risk destroying yourselves for little gain against the enemy?

amateur kids prepare only for best case scenarioLOL...we are not talking Mexico here.

And since none of us have stated the best case scenario at all here, what best case do you see that the EU has a chance at winning? We've already talked about the worst case scenario and that is using the nuclear bomb option.

the UK alone has the potential to destroy the largest 100 cities.

And those missiles will be aimed at Europe :rolleyes:

nukets are part of the ecuation...
true strategists have to be ready for every scenariogood or bad...
amateur kids prepare only for best case scenarioLOL...we are not talking Mexico here.
the UK alone has the potential to destroy the largest 100 cities.
But as the title of this thread says, the UK is against the EU.
Even with the worse case scenario. Do you think Europe (and ONLY Europe) could withstand the combined nuclear arsenal of the US and UK?

But as the title of this thread says, the UK is against the EU.
Even with the worse case scenario. Do you think Europe (and ONLY Europe) could withstand the combined nuclear arsenal of the US and UK?

Thats an easy one to answer. The answer is a resounding NO!

meh

And those missiles will be aimed at Europe :rolleyes:You sound very confident that the Uk is willing to take the US side and nuke France.

You sound very confident that the Uk is willing to take the US side and nuke France.

READ THE TITLE OF THIS DAMN THREAD OCEANDRIVE!

But as the title of this thread says, the UK is against the EU.
Even with the worse case scenario. Do you think Europe (and ONLY Europe) could withstand the combined nuclear arsenal of the US and UK?no It cant...I dont think either side can stop the incoming nukes...they can stop some...but most will do thier job.

READ THE TITLE OF THIS DAMN THREAD OCEANDRIVE!take it easy... I can almost feel the fumes coming out of your ears :D

You sound very confident that the Uk is willing to take the US side and nuke France.
do you read?, okay let me say this again

MAD: Mutual Assured Destruction OKAY!!
but in this case its one sided, the EU doesn't have enough power to take all of the US out, maybe some cities, (not to mention in any first strike because lets face it the US would start it(LOL) we would destory all of your nuclear ability, you may have a few left over but thats it) Nukes aren't an option unless your crazy and want to see your entire civilation end in seconds(well more like minutes)..

Also the UK WIll join the US look at the thread title we are already assuming they jioin(along with canada and possible austrailia)...

be careful or your brains are going to explode :D

:rolleyes:

Britain in this scenario is on the US Side as is Canada. Now that we have that worked out, who'll win?

no It cant...I dont think either side can stop the incoming nukes...they can stop some...but most will do thier job.

You misunderstand. The US can stop some. Europe doesn't have the ability to stop any (especially as the US-UK alliance could get their submarines in position for a slant launch while EU subs would be hunted down and killed long before they could ever hope to cross the atlantic; the USoB has to wait, oh, ten or so minutes for their missiles to hit, EU has to wait hours).

:rolleyes:

Britain in this scenario is on the US Side as is Canada. Now that we have that worked out, who'll win?

the anglo alliance of course, unless the EU launches an amazing guerillia war, then they stand a chance...