NationStates Jolt Archive

If in 50 years time, the US and the EU come to blows, who would win? We're assuming that by 2050, the EU would encompass all of Europe, from Iberia to Russia (except turkey, because they're not really European). We're also assuming that nobody uses strategic nukes.

Germany always wins. Oh. Wait... http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/GermanFanblock.jpg

China.

China.

Let's assuming that China doesn't care, or that they've collapsed from lack of oil during their growth boom.

No one, every one will just die.

Highly improbable as there hasnt been a war bewteen democracies in around 100 years.

Let's assuming that China doesn't care, or that they've collapsed from lack of oil during their growth boom.
Or they all die of pollution.

Russia will never join the EU, I think.. It's much more likely that Turkey gets in.
Anyway, europe'd win. I mean, I'm gonna live there by 2050, hopefully.
(wow.. my first post)

If in 50 years time, the US and the EU come to blows, who would win? We're assuming that by 2050, the EU would encompass all of Europe, from Iberia to Russia (except turkey, because they're not really European). We're also assuming that nobody uses strategic nukes.

A 44 year gap is far too long for anyone to predict the outcome of such a conflict with anything approaching certainty.

You could have told people in 1962 that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would be coming to blows in 2006, and then asked them the same question.

Nobody back then would have had the slightest clue...and neither do we.

But I'll be a flag-waving little monkey and say the U.S. :p

EU...because before that time (2050), when the US has collapsed in on itself and begins warring on the homeland, the EU will have to fix em up....and as the world knows, you never help even an ally recover or advance to a point in which they can match or better your status - militarily or economically. And besides Germany always wins, except when they go mad, like the world wars or the world cup lol (touchy subject!)

E.U.

I'm betting the E.U. would be able to maintain a campaign for longer.

Is this assuming both sides have enough oil to wage a massive war?

I'd say the EU would be stronger and able to beat the Hell out of us. Hence the strength of teamwork...

Is this assuming both sides have enough oil to wage a massive war?

We're assuming they both have alternative energy sources now.

And surely the combined resources of 15-20 countries could destroy one country. Plus there isnt the biggest amount of love for the US in the world atm, and I doubt that will change in 44 years, no offense folks

If in 50 years time, the US and the EU come to blows, who would win? We're assuming that by 2050, the EU would encompass all of Europe, from Iberia to Russia (except turkey, because they're not really European). We're also assuming that nobody uses strategic nukes.

Why would we assume all that?

All based on the assumption that either/or both the United States and the European Union stills exists in half a century....?

Honestly? I think the EU will become less militarised. If the USA hasn't collapsed by then, they'd still be able to own us militarily, and I'd be proud to say I'm not a warmonger.

The EU and USA will fight a long and protracted war, always wishing to resort to nukes, but because of a condition placed on these governments but an unreasonable OP, they continue fighting for many years, slowly retarding their respective economies and weakening their global standings considerably. Eventually, both bodies fall to their knees and China rises to become the pre-eminent force on the global stage, with a servile US and EU miserable reflections of their former glories.

Honestly? I think the EU will become less militarised. If the USA hasn't collapsed by then, they'd still be able to own us militarily, and I'd be proud to say I'm not a warmonger.
Hmm I don't really know about that. The EU has some fairly good armies in it, and combined together I think it'd come out on top.

Still, the results wouldn't be pleasant.

Highly improbable as there hasnt been a war bewteen democracies in around 100 years.
Who said anything about the US remaining a democracy? :D

We would be returning the favour of WW2, bringing you freedom from the skies.

Who said anything about the US remaining a democracy? :D

I agree....i think the US is heading conservative/fascist way....good luck staying 'democratic' for much longer. Tho personally, and im sure many will agree, that American Democracy could already be gone?!

We would be returning the favour of WW2, bringing you freedom from the skies.

Haha fair enuff u helped in WW2 but dnt forget it was GB that did all the work in that war, and the USSR, *tips hat* so dont over play the US role in WW2

Europe, but it will be a Muslim Europe (eek) and they will go Ji-had on the US's ass.

Honestly? I think the EU will become less militarised. If the USA hasn't collapsed by then, they'd still be able to own us militarily, and I'd be proud to say I'm not a warmonger.

Europe is comiong closer to forming a direct competitor to NATO.

Swilatia.

Bophuthatswana!

Europe, but it will be a Muslim Europe (eek) and they will go Ji-had on the US's ass.

I don't like Xenophobes...

Gosh darn it if we don't talk about some very silly things...

*shrugs*

I believe Albert Einstein said: "I don't know what weapons WW3 will be fought with but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones"

We have learnt what happens when huge industrialised nations with powerful mechanised militaries fight...

And the technology has got a lot nastier since last time.
We would probably both kill eachother

I agree....i think the US is heading conservative/fascist way....good luck staying 'democratic' for much longer. Tho personally, and im sure many will agree, that American Democracy could already be gone?!



Haha fair enuff u helped in WW2 but dnt forget it was GB that did all the work in that war, and the USSR, *tips hat* so dont over play the US role in WW2

Your absolutely right. It was George Bush that did all the work in that war. I'm glad to see such a history buff.

Incidentally, after a conflict that makes the Trojan war look like a tea party, the invaders (whicever one is invading) will be driven back, at which point Canada will promptly invade a severely weakened (either way) America, and end up annexing Alaska, Montana, Michigain, and Colorado. Colorado just because.

I doubt the US could push back the combned armies of Europe, simply because we're so much classier than you, the US armed forces would be terrified by our excellent manners and correct speech.

I doubt the US could push back the combned armies of Europe, simply because we're so much classier than you, the US armed forces would be terrified by our excellent manners and correct speech.

Aye, but only the ones with enough manners to be ashamed by your superiority. You'd still have to deal with all the rednecks, bible thumpers and just plain rude people.

Aye, but only the ones with enough manners to be ashamed by your superiority. You'd still have to deal with all the rednecks, bible thumpers and just plain rude people.

We'd use multisyllabic words to confuse them.

i think the eu would in theory be stronger. but the likes of france and germany hold the bulk of power but are complete pussies, they wouldnt start a war. the eastern european countrys and britain would be more in favour but would need germany and france to be in as well. this situation would split the EU and it would collapse and the US would be left trying to keep it's superpower status whilst china becomes the most powerfull economy.

i think the eu would in theory be stronger. but the likes of france and germany hold the bulk of power but are complete pussies, they wouldnt start a war. the eastern european countrys and britain would be more in favour but would need germany and france to be in as well. this situation would split the EU and it would collapse and the US would be left trying to keep it's superpower status whilst china becomes the most powerfull economy.

Well, let's say that the US invades Europe. What then?

I don't like Xenophobes...


Me either but as a european I don't want Europe to become Muslim as it is predicted to be. That doesn't make me xenophbic. Any people I know who are of Muslim faith I get on with, I may not agree with all their values and religious beliefs, I don't agree with all the beliefs of my own religion that doesn't make me a xenophobic person.

They'd be screwed. Our home ground, our insane people. Nothing could prepare US troops for meeting their first French farmer.

They'd be screwed. Our home ground, our insane people. Nothing could prepare US troops for meeting their first French farmer.

That was kinda my point. Of course, considering the gun ownership in the US, it makes sense that I predicted whichever side invaded would eventually be driven back.

It wouldn't do much good. remember, most of Europe has had to deal with a well-armed insurgency at some point, and we're very good at not being squeamish about it.

They'd be screwed. Our home ground, our insane people. Nothing could prepare US troops for meeting their first French farmer.


Lol so true!

personally i think the EU will fall apart.

Is this assuming both sides have enough oil to wage a massive war?

By the 2050s humanity is expected to be making significant headway in Cold Fussion, I doubt oil will play much of a part in anything other than plastics production.

Anyway, Russia will never be part of the EU, in fact, I doubt it will even still exist as a political entity by 2050. Turkey on the other hand will enter the EU imminently, and rightly so.

Back to the topic at hand, the only way a war would errupt betwixt the two would be if one of them descended into tyranny. In which case, the one that remained free would be victorious, as soldiers are ultimately much more likely to risk their lives for a state that offers them freedom than a state that offers them oppression, (once the realities of battle have wiped away any state propaganda of course).

By the 2050s humanity is expected to be making significant headway in Cold Fussion, I doubt oil will play much of a part in anything other than plastics production.

Anyway, Russia will never be part of the EU, in fact, I doubt it will even still exist as a political entity by 2050. Turkey on the other hand will enter the EU imminently, and rightly so.

Back to the topic at hand, the only way a war would errupt betwixt the two would be if one of them descended into tyranny. In which case, the one that remained free would be victorious, as soldiers are ultimately much more likely to risk their lives for a state that offers them freedom than a state that offers them oppression, (once the realities of battle have wiped away any state propaganda of course).

Hmm. Just out of curiosity, how 'free' was Japan during World War Two?

Hmm. Just out of curiosity, how 'free' was Japan during World War Two?

Japan had hundreds of years of emperor-worship to back up the state.

Japan had hundreds of years of emperor-worship to back up the state.

True. I'm just pointing out that his statement does have some notable exceptions. There are motives besides freedom that someone will risk and/or give their life for. Example: Religion.

Hmm. Just out of curiosity, how 'free' was Japan during World War Two?

Japan was a special case, the unprecedented level of isolationism in that country made it possible for the establishment to convince the general populace that their enemy was not even Human, therefore enabling the war machine to keep working in defence of "humanity", rather than freedom.

But generally, it can be said that realisation will eventually set in amongst front-line soldiers.

True. I'm just pointing out that his statement does have some notable exceptions. There are motives besides freedom that someone will risk and/or give their life for. Example: Religion.

Indeed, but it is exceptions that make the rule.

As for Religion, what is that but the stoic treatment of reality in order so that one may experience freedom in the next life? Most actions that sane people make ultimately lead to acquisition of freedom.

The real question is...

Would Britain fight with their EU cousins, or would we be on the side of our prodigal sons, America...


Airstrip One anyone?


Just me?



Bah humbug

I thin we'd side with Europe. I think we trade more with Europe than the US.

I would hope so - I have more friends and relatives in Europe.

not that I hope there would be a war :S

lol you know that Britain would end up being the bloody battle field

from Iberia to Russia (except turkey, because they're not really European)

I don't think we [Russia] are likely to join anywhere in the next 50 years, while Turkey is already on the way to membership. Also, Switzerland would never join such an alliance.

I guess it would depend who is the defending party. Europe would squash an American invasion, but it could never conquer the USA without help.

Perhaps, but:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

We'd beat the crap out of any invaders.

lets hope that by 2050 Britain is so powerful that it won't matter who would win or who's side Britain's on.
Either way, EU would win, but it would be difficult.

Well, let's say that the US invades Europe. What then?

why would a nation based on self determination invade other nations? especially as we have used all of out natural feul rescources. this is a bit of an impossible scenario.

I think the USA will leave the UN and ally the EU and fight the UN.

The Americans are very much upset with the Conservative/fascists yet, they have absolute hatred for the UN.

Everyone should just hand over the keys to their country to the UN.

why would a nation based on self determination invade other nations? especially as we have used all of out natural feul rescources. this is a bit of an impossible scenario.

You know, that's an excellent point. It's not like the US has ever violated another nation's sovereignty (sp?). I mean, it's not like we ever affected regime change, or interfered in another nation's leadership when we thought it would benefeit them (or us!).

Oh...

Wait...

what if asia, africa and *snigger* oceania joined in to make a REAL world war?

There is a fundemental problem with the question being asked, "who would win?" does nobody realise this is war we are talking about, nobody wins, people die, it costs millions and the only people who gain anything are polititians who start wars to increase their popularity.

Perhaps, but:

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old."

We'd beat the crap out of any invaders.

Whatever happens in 2050, you can rest assured that the British spirit will prevail dominance. The ressurgent British Empire will once again fight until the last man. The maxim of the British people is "Business as usual." Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be. This is the British attitude and it's why the EU shall prevail

Never Give Up, Never Surrender -- Winston Churchill

EU...because before that time (2050), when the US has collapsed in on itself and begins warring on the homeland, the EU will have to fix em up....and as the world knows, you never help even an ally recover or advance to a point in which they can match or better your status - militarily or economically. And besides Germany always wins, except when they go mad, like the world wars or the world cup lol (touchy subject!)
I think Germany was the only country who DIDN'T know they were gonna lose in the world cup.

LOL and who let my country (US) tie Italy with only 9 players!? WTF is this world coming to? And I heard Beckam might be moving to a US team?

Back to topic. Umm, well, much of the EU has a stagnating economy, but the combined strength of all those nations might just be comparable to 20 kids jumping on us all at that same time. Or we might just give em chocolate pieces with razorblades in them.

And surely the combined resources of 15-20 countries could destroy one country. Plus there isnt the biggest amount of love for the US in the world atm, and I doubt that will change in 44 years, no offense folks
depends does the UK side with the US or EU, w/us nobrainer US/UK win. against US it gets much closer

EU ain't patriotic. Many UK people would side with the US. US love a war and the huge amount of poor people brings plenty of cannon fodder. EU can't organise together either.

Turkey will be in the EU...

US would win...

EU ain't patriotic. Many UK people would side with the US. US love a war and the huge amount of poor people brings plenty of cannon fodder. EU can't organise together either.

Turkey will be in the EU...

US would win...
Umm, the EU in its entirety has a shitload more poor people than the US. So yall do have that going for you...

Turkey would all of a sudden own a fair stock of US nuclear weapons. Oh dear.

In a war against the US administration the british public wouldn't have much of a problem with pwning the shit out of the US. The EU can organise itself when necessary. Add to that the possiblity of a European military (already under discussion) and thinks look bad for future US. Hell, future EU could just refuse to trade with the US. That'd hurt the US more than it would the EU.

EU ain't patriotic.
Oh noes!
Many UK people would side with the US.
Feck orf!

Most Brits would rather side with the French and Germans, our traditional enemies, than the US.
US love a war and the huge amount of poor people brings plenty of cannon fodder.
Just think about what you're saying. All of the poor in the US. So that's what... about, let's say, 100 million people, right?

All of the poor people in the EU?

A lot more than 100 million people for sure.
EU can't organise together either.
You presume.
Turkey will be in the EU...
Urmm... yes?

What's wrong with that? They might be helpful!
US would win...
Not likely.

EU would win.
They wouldn't have fatass soldiers.

US all the way.

Bigger military, more ships, more aircraft, better aircraft, and if somehow by God's grace you DID get to the mainland we civilians would make hell for you ;).

We spend more on our military than most countries do on themselves. What are we at not? 700 billion?

They'd be screwed. Our home ground, our insane people. Nothing could prepare US troops for meeting their first French farmer.
I disagree. I'm sure there's at least something in US military training along the lines of "How to Accept an Unconditional Surrender".

I disagree. I'm sure there's at least something in US military training along the lines of "How to Accept an Unconditional Surrender".
i remember seeing footage of hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi "soldiers" surrendering to attack choppers in gulf war I

And surely the combined resources of 15-20 countries could destroy one country. Plus there isnt the biggest amount of love for the US in the world atm, and I doubt that will change in 44 years, no offense folks
There's\possible language barriers when it comes to the EU, not to mention old rivalries might reflare.(There won't be one language)

I disagree. I'm sure there's at least something in US military training along the lines of "How to Accept an Unconditional Surrender".

French soldiers can't fight. The farmers are terminators.

US all the way.

Bigger military, more ships, more aircraft, better aircraft, and if somehow by God's grace you DID get to the mainland we civilians would make hell for you ;).

We spend more on our military than most countries do on themselves. What are we at not? 700 billion?
Not to mention Europe has really pussified itself by demilitarizing and promoting sensitivity because of the "feel-good" age.

It's a hard choice, as has been said 50 years is a long time.

However, assuming military stats are as they are now, I'd have to say the US would win. The EU really isn't a millitary union, at least at present. It would be many small countries fighting independantly. And with the threat of invasion, you can bet your ass some countries would probably turn on each other (France and Germany, anyone).

That's right. All Europeans are pansies! We don't have armies, air forces or navies, and we certainly don't have nuclear deterrents!

That's right. All Europeans are pansies! We don't have armies, air forces or navies, and we certainly don't have nuclear deterrents!
Its not that, but compare any military of an EU member to the US, and US infinite pwns them. Combine all EU members, US still pwns.

There's\possible language barriers when it comes to the EU, not to mention old rivalries might reflare.(There won't be one language)
In 44 years' time, we might all be speaking Esperanto. That'd put you in your place, wouldn't it?

Its not that, but compare any military of an EU member to the US, and US infinite pwns them. Combine all EU members, US still pwns.

Bullshit. Total and utter bullshit.

In 44 years' time, we might all be speaking Esperanto. That'd put you in your place, wouldn't it?

Whatever the hell that is.

I say bring back Latin.

Not to mention Europe has really pussified itself by demilitarizing and promoting sensitivity because of the "feel-good" age.

Yep. And the French are aggressive exporting white flags to every corner of the globe.

i remember seeing footage of hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi "soldiers" surrendering to attack choppers in gulf war I

Hell, they even surrendered to a flippin' unmanned aerial vehicle because they were smart and knew that UAVs preceded heavy naval gunfire.

The US would have to warn those boats at some point and then it turns into the "I only speak Soomaali game" and then the "And now I have launched 8 Exocets at your Carrier, so tata for now game".

IIRC, we know that .50's and GE miniguns and even USN sub hulls will tear civilian boats to peices.

And also, how many somali boats are actually going to be converted to carry exocets? It's not like an RPG that the average AK-toting-monkey insurgent can just point and say "Oh allah slay the infidels with this 1000 lb missile". It requires complex systems to fire it, AND to keep it on target. I don't even think the somalis could fit one on their boats.

Well, if they can fit 300 people on a small barge I'm pretty sure they'll find a way, but when they launch it it will scorch the hull.

Ah they finally named it did they? Well at least it isn't as naff as reaper or spitfire II, but it's saying something about your lack of imagination when you can't be bothered to think up a name for your multi billion dollar fighter project so just call it what you tried to call the last one.

The lightning is a good name-it's a carry over from the earlier P38 fighter, a fine aircraft. Must continue the tradition........

Bullshit. Total and utter bullshit.

What's utter bullshit is this whole scenario. We have no idea what each of the two "combatants" will be like economically, and there's no way you could ever isolate a conflict this huge. You can't tell me that China or Japan or any other emerging power wouldn't get involved.

Bullshit. Total and utter bullshit.
Okay, what I said was my jingoistic side. However, America, when it comes to large-scale, world war like wars, has the most determination and such.

Bullshit. Total and utter bullshit.

Europe is full of pussies.

And how are they going to get across the atlantic? Wave the white flags and paddle over?

DM: Don't say flippin'. Anyone born outside the UK should be shot for saying that, or any of the following words:

Bugger
Arse
Drat
Crikey

And some others I probably forgot... Perhaps.

How about the Royal Navy? We'd kick your upstart backsides up and down the Atlantic.

Europe is full of pussies.

And how are they going to get across the atlantic? Wave the white flags and paddle over?

You think that's an uphill battle? Wait till the U.S. develops weapons that can be fired from outer space. GPS targeting from a space station is pretty hard to stop. Especially if this "war" drags on enough that the U.S. stops giving a shit and carpet bombs the whole continent of Europe into the stone age.

Its not that, but compare any military of an EU member to the US, and US infinite pwns them.
The Swedish ftw!
Combine all EU members, US still pwns.
Hahahahahahaaaa...

Nary a chance.

You've got the Finns, one of the strongest fighting forces in the world.
The Swedish, who are also very, very good.
The British, whose fighting skills are excellent, and our special forces are pretty much without compare.
The French, who are also getting very good (yes, you can make quips about the World Wars all you like *sighs*).
The Belgians, who have the best arms manufacturers in the world behind them (Fabrique Nationale).
The Germans, who are very strong, especially with the new-ish KSK.

And the various other armies of the EU. To be honest, the US Military is looking crap by comparison.

You think that's an uphill battle? Wait till the U.S. develops weapons that can be fired from outer space. GPS targeting from a space station is pretty hard to stop. Especially if this "war" drags on enough that the U.S. stops giving a shit and carpet bombs the whole continent of Europe into the stone age.
Ah yes, because the EU is clearly incapable of weapons development... :rolleyes:

Ah yes, because the EU is clearly incapable of weapons development... :rolleyes:

They think we still use brown bess.

Ah yes, because the EU is clearly incapable of weapons development... :rolleyes:

Okay, but the US still owns the final frontier.

Whatever the hell that is.
Oh the ignorance! The ignorance of it all!

It's a language created in the late 19th century by a Quaker who wanted world peace. It takes elements from many other languages, mostly European ones.

I'm sure there's a Wiki article on it (although knowing Wiki, it'll probably say it's a Russian dialect only spoken in the Tap & Spile pub in Slough or something).

Okay, but the US still owns the final frontier.
Despite the USSR getting there first...

They think we still use brown bess.
I see...

Brown Bess > M1A2

Right?

Oh the ignorance! The ignorance of it all!

It's a language created in the late 19th century by a Quaker who wanted world peace. It takes elements from many other languages, mostly European ones.

I'm sure there's a Wiki article on it (although knowing Wiki, it'll probably say it's a Russian dialect only spoken in the Tap & Spile pub in Slough or something).

Wikipedia says there are at most 2 million fluent speakers of this language. I still say we use Latin.

Either way, once we do, let's celebrate our unity by building a huge tower...

Despite the USSR getting there first...

Yes, their garbage from that bygone era is still floating around up there.

I see...

Brown Bess > M1A2

Right?

A single redcoat with a musket can pin down an entire armoured battalion and have a cup of tea in comfort and style.

Wikipedia says there are at most 2 million fluent speakers of this language.
Urmm yeah, that's because it's not an official language of... well... anywhere.

On the other hand, making it the lingua franca of the EU would make millions more learn it!
Either way, once we do, let's celebrate our unity by building a huge tower...
No, because towers can fall down.

Let's dig a really big ditch. To save Holland.

A single redcoat with a musket can pin down an entire armoured battalion and have a cup of tea in comfort and style.
Until the French, Dutch and Spanish come along and ruin our fun :(

The Motherland will never fall to Western Imperialism!

:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Until the French, Dutch and Spanish come along and ruin our fun :(

They'll never take my crimson frock coat! NEVER!

Yes, their garbage from that bygone era is still floating around up there.
Just remember that large parts of the ISS that NASA so dearly loves were made by Russia and the ESA.

If the US tried to nuke us from space we'd send a Beagle probe to crash into their space weapons. :D

The US. We've got India and most likely China on our side, especially if we promise to give the Chinese any captured Russian oil and gas fields in Siberia for their cooperation. They're also our biggest trading partner and love our debt, so those are two more things in our favor. Also, the US population will likely be overall younger and our economy healthier both of which are vital to fighting a war against a power like the EU.

Will the UK go with the US or Europe in 2050?

DM: Don't say flippin'. Anyone born outside the UK should be shot for saying that, or any of the following words:

Bugger
Arse
Drat
Crikey

And some others I probably forgot... Perhaps.

How about the Royal Navy? We'd kick your upstart backsides up and down the Atlantic.
Bloody, how could you forget that?

Royal Navy, meet supercarriers.

Just remember that large parts of the ISS that NASA so dearly loves were made by Russia and the ESA.

Well, yeah, International.

Supercarriers, meet Exocet.

Oh, and we'd probably stop making you Harriers.

Supercarriers, meet Exocet.

Oh, and we'd probably stop making you Harriers.

John Paul Jones.

John Paul Jones.

The guy who commanded a converted slaver?

I would say that a war would depend almost entirely on who hit the ground first. If the US made the first strike, I believe that it would manage to take a significant portion of Europe relatively quickly becuase European armies(with the exception of GB and Russia) tend to be trained for peacekeeping more than war. Beyond that, I simply do not believe that 50 or so years is enough time to develop the cohesion that Europe would need to act as a single entity rather than a group of allies with different desires and wills. That said, the victory would be mostly illusory as European armies would quickly turn to asymetrical guerilla tactics. Europe as a single unit has a massive advantage over an invading force because languages and cutlures change so quickly; it would be very hard to manage the resources necessary to maintain control. In the end it would become a stalemate that would resemble the cold war. The US would consolidate it's forces to some small part of Europe(Likely GB and either the Scandanavia areas or Spain/Portugal) and engage in costly behind-the-scenes wars against the EU with pawns much like the US and USSR did with Vietnam, Korea, Afganisatan, etc.

If the EU invaded the US I think you would see a heavy and brutal war on the fought on the eastern coast. Europe would likely do well(I suspect that the variety of cultures represented in leadership positions would lead to better tactical decisions) and would have the major advantage of being able to speak the language spoken by those the land they are attacking(meaning that maintaining taken territory will likely be easier). Still, I think that it would ultimately become something of an illusory victory as well as European armies discovered why it is generally difficult to maintain control of an area with lots of places to hide and more privately owned guns than people. A few deer hunters with scoped 30-30s sitting in blinds on the side of the road can do ALOT of damage.

I think that most Europeans(and most Americans who live in urban areas) underestimate just how prevelant the gun culture is in the United States. Once you get to more rural areas you run into towns where nearly everyone owns several guns and the vast majority do accuracy drills for fun. I know that the outdoor range I drive to routinely has boy scout, girl scout, and 4H troops teaching kids how to shoot straight from very early ages(I've seen a few kids that couldn't have been more than 6 or 7). These aren't some extremists waiting for the Rapture, this is the norm in large parts of the country. The first bear killed in Maryland this year was brought down by an eight year old girl. That kind of culture is going to be one that is very hard to control. The skills required to be a successful hunter are exactly the same skills required to be a successful guerilla(stealth, accuracy, and the ability to work independently) and the US has tens(likely hundreds) of thousands of serious hunters.

The US. We've got India and most likely China on our side, especially if we promise to give the Chinese any captured Russian oil and gas fields in Siberia for their cooperation. They're also our biggest trading partner and love our debt, so those are two more things in our favor. Also, the US population will likely be overall younger and our economy healthier both of which are vital to fighting a war against a power like the EU.
Yeah, well just remember that by 2050, China and India will be their own superpowers, and won't be shoved about by the at-that-point weak USA.

Russia also won't have any oil or gas at that point, too.

The US will probably use up the last oil and gas and only sorted its energy problems out too late, whereas the EU will probably start developing solutions much earlier and also faster.
Will the UK go with the US or Europe in 2050?
Europe, I think.

Supercarriers, meet Exocet.

Oh, and we'd probably stop making you Harriers.
Damn, no Harriers? That only leaves us B-2s!

Exocets? That won't completely get the job done.

It'd be very hard to use GB as a base of operations. The SAS, SBS and the Marines would pretty much disappear into the countryside and the general populace. Those guys are fucking insane, and they'd make life very tough for any occupier.

The guy who commanded a converted slaver?

The Bonhomme Richard I believe. He was a Scot though, so I don't really have you beat... I've had my fun.

The Bonhomme Richard I believe. He was a Scot though, so I don't really have you beat... I've had my fun.

The height of his career was capturing winter clothes. Great for him.

Perhaps you refer to Drake? Jones wanted to attack in broad daylight. His crew almost mutnied.

I would say everyone would be screwed. Canada, Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Russia, Indonesia and anyone else who cared to would all probably get involved. The EU (including Britain who i think would go with them) would collapse, followed by the US federal government and European governments, with the UN falling to bits somewhere along the lines. No one would have much control and the US and Europe, at least, would become a big nasty hellhole of anarchy (the bad kind) and guerilla fighting filled with lots and lots of dead people. No one would win as the original two sides ceased to exist. What would happen next would be the interesting part.

It'd be very hard to use GB as a base of operations. The SAS, SBS and the Marines would pretty much disappear into the countryside and the general populace. Those guys are fucking insane, and they'd make life very tough for any occupier.
You're also forgetting the Royal Marine Commandos, Desert Fox Commandos, various TA units (there is a TA SAS, SBS and also a group called the Volunteer Commandos which are pretty hardcore).

Plus we're tougher than we look, hate invaders, and our cities are pretty full of guns.

Not a bad point... We don't have many legal guns, but in places like Nottingham illegal firearms are a problem. :D

Damn, no Harriers? That only leaves us B-2s!
Urmm B-2s are much less tactically flexible than Harriers.
Exocets? That won't completely get the job done.
I think you'll find they will, although you'd probably have to bring out a supercarrier for us to test this on.

Not a bad point... We don't have many legal guns, but in places like Nottingham illegal firearms are a problem. :D
Yeah, London and Glasgow would be pretty horrible for an invader.

our cities are pretty full of guns.

Too true. And not just big ones. Nottingham is gun crime capital of the UK, if not Europe.

The US has less than 30 B2s... Could be less than 20, not sure. Hardly an adequate replacement.

The height of his career was capturing winter clothes. Great for him.

Perhaps you refer to Drake? Jones wanted to attack in broad daylight. His crew almost mutnied.

On September 23, 1779, commanded by Captain Richard Pearson, she engaged the American warship USS Bonhomme Richard which was under the command of John Paul Jones in the North Sea off Flamborough Head, England. The two vessels exchanged heavy fire and Bonhomme Richard lost most of her fire power. The battle raged on for three hours as the crew of Bonhomme Richard tenaciously fought Serapis, raking her deck with gunfire. Eventually, Bonhomme Richard rammed Serapis and boarded her deck. Captain Pearson eventually surrendered, handing Serapis over to the Americans.

The defeat was a major embarrassment for the British and Serapis was turned over to the French in 1782.

Says Wikipedia.

You can have that one, then. Good show.

Still, hardly startling, and hardly pertinent to this scenario.

I would say everyone would be screwed. Canada, Brazil, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, Russia, Indonesia and anyone else who cared to would all probably get involved. The EU (including Britain who i think would go with them) would collapse, followed by the US federal government and European governments, with the UN falling to bits somewhere along the lines. No one would have much control and the US and Europe, at least, would become a big nasty hellhole of anarchy (the bad kind) and guerilla fighting filled with lots and lots of dead people. No one would win as the original two sides ceased to exist. What would happen next would be the interesting part.

Brazil would do what it has always done in times of major wars. Sit on the fence until it is obvious which side is going to win and then join that side. If it becomes obvious that no one is going to win then we just go back to having a party on the beach and wait for it all to get sorted out. :p

Brazil would do what it has always done in times of major wars. Sit on the fence until it is obvious which side is going to win and then join that side. If it becomes obvious that no one is going to win then we just go back to having a party on the beach and wait for it all to get sorted out. :p

:p go Brazil.

Yeah, well just remember that by 2050, China and India will be their own superpowers, and won't be shoved about by the at-that-point weak USA.

Even if China grows at 10% per annum to 2050 (not possible) China won't catch up to the US real GDP today until 2021 and wouldn't surpass us until the 2030's; even then, they wouldn't have as high a level of GDP per capita. India's only looking at 5.6% per year to 2020 so it'll be even farther behind; they'll both be world powers but will still lag the

They'll be a power but not more than the US; there's also the problem of governmental stability and dependence on foreign trade. We'll be one of their main trading partners for a long time, so they'll be hard pressed to support anyone else, especially if we back up our promises with equipment and supplies.

Russia also won't have any oil or gas at that point, too.

They've got so much in Siberia it's not going anywhere for a long time...the only problem is, it's too difficult to produce it right now so it probably won't be recoverable in large quantities until the 2050's, and the US

The US will probably use up the last oil and gas and only sorted its energy problems out too late, whereas the EU will probably start developing solutions much earlier and also faster.

I think both sides will have long since addressed the major energy issues since oil will have begun to decline in the 2020's and natural gas is still plentiful at least until the 2070's or later.

Europe, I think.

It'll probably be a stalemate outside of Russia.

You can have that one, then. Good show.

Still, hardly startling, and hardly pertinent to this scenario.

Oh, fine. Seeing as this scenario is just a bunch of "oh yeah, well in the future, under the ideal circumstances, we would totally pwn you!" I didn't see much relevance in actually discussing it. Oh well. The international rivalry thing always gets my adrenaline up to a point, and then I just say: "who says we can't all get along?"

And so I say

"Who says we can't all get along?"

Pleasure discussing history with you, my redcoat friend.

Likewise, colonial. :D

The war would probably be initiated by the militaristic US. The EU, although it has a seemingly smaller military, split across 25 separate member states, would no doubt have the support of many other countries worldwide. There are vast numbers of Commonwealth countries that would support the UK and hence EU. These include larde countries like Australia, India and Canada (more British than we British, and French Canadians would support EU through France). Russia will also probably be in the EU by then, trying to maintain its power. If you think about the current G8, 6 out of the 8 countries would definitely support the EU and Japan might or might not. The US would be surrounded, by Canada to the north, Russia to the west, Europe across the Atlantic, and the Hispanic (Spain in EU) South America.

Anyways, I still say it ends with whoever ends up invading being driven out, and Canada invading the US.

Oh, and California breaks off to go hang out with Hawaii. Alaska can come too.

U.S. would win, plain and simple. U.S. would be a single nation focused on one goal, the E.U. and its allies would seem to be focused on one goal, but they would be subject to in-fighting, bickering, and posturing for power. A major war with the U.S. could even cause the E.U. to split up, with some countries wanting to remain neutral, some wanting to side with the U.S., and some wanting to fight. In short, a mess for the E.U. and a victory for the U.S. :cool:

If in 50 years time, the US and the EU come to blows, who would win? We're assuming that by 2050, the EU would encompass all of Europe, from Iberia to Russia (except turkey, because they're not really European). We're also assuming that nobody uses strategic nukes.
Yeah, I dont think it would be close. The EU by a mile. By then the US will no longer be a world power and the EU and China will be the two counterbalancing superpowers.

On the other hand, making it the lingua franca of the EU would make millions more learn it!


Yeah because giving up your language, no one could possibly oppose that. Look at how much oposition there was to the introduction of the Euro, do you really think that mandating a common "European Languge" is going to fly any time soon?

It doesn't matter how much the elites want it, in the end you still have to have the will of the people behind you or you're fucked, just look at the EU constitution...

They will just each other up, which is fine by me.

It'd be very hard to use GB as a base of operations. The SAS, SBS and the Marines would pretty much disappear into the countryside and the general populace. Those guys are fucking insane, and they'd make life very tough for any occupier.

Yes, provided that those guys decided to. The British are a pragmatic, tough, and intelligent people. It is worth noting that the British have managed to maintain their status as a world power through two world wars, two wars with the US, the loss of nearly their entire empire, a prolonged civil war, and several major world depressions. They haven't survived by luck. Siding with the US against Europe means avoiding the severe damage that would be suffered during an attempt to take the island. The UK isn't exactly the most active partner in the EU, and I doubt thats likely to change. Faced with being the US base of operations against the rest of Europe, or being Europe's buffer against the US, I doubt the British would choose to take one for the team.

Besides, siding with the US(even grudgingly) puts the UK in a great position to be the major power in the European theater when the smoke clears. The US will evenually leave because Americans will eventually get sick of spending the money required to maintain an empire, and even if the US gets beaten by Europe, both will be too tired to be major players. It would be an exhausting war, and a UK that conserved it's resources would end up being the strongest power in the western hemisphere.

It amazes me how many people will add in all these preconditions to explain why their side will come out on top in a firefight twixt America and the EU. The US will be like this, so the EU will cakewalk over them, or the EU will be a bunch of flippin' pussies, so the US military will roll right over them. Blah, blah, blah.

Or does one of you have a non-biased functional crystal-ball that we can use to se what would happen?

I'm wondering why everyone seems to assume that Russia will join the EU. It seems to me that for Russia to be a contender geographically you would have to see a major turn around in the Eastern European economies that lie between Russia and the EU(unless the EU is willing to have nonEU nations between member states). Beyond that, I do not think it is likely that Russia will change it's ways anytime soon. These days Russia is rolling back the democratic reforms made during the end and directly following the USSR as fast as it can. Putin is not alone in his total disregard of western liberalism. I'm not sure that the EU would be comfortable bringing a highly militarized, increasingly totalitarian nation into the flock, especially one with such a long history of corruption, political instability, and economic collapse.

hey...

why would they fight anyway? I doubt they would. If they ever did, one or both would have to be quite different from the EU and US of today.

Well If the EU has Russia, EU wins.

Will there be martians? Who will they back?

Will there be martians? Who will they back?

Hugo Chavez.

I'm wondering why everyone seems to assume that Russia will join the EU. It seems to me that for Russia to be a contender geographically you would have to see a major turn around in the Eastern European economies that lie between Russia and the EU(unless the EU is willing to have nonEU nations between member states). Beyond that, I do not think it is likely that Russia will change it's ways anytime soon. These days Russia is rolling back the democratic reforms made during the end and directly following the USSR as fast as it can. Putin is not alone in his total disregard of western liberalism. I'm not sure that the EU would be comfortable bringing a highly militarized, increasingly totalitarian nation into the flock, especially one with such a long history of corruption, political instability, and economic collapse.


If anything, Russia will join the EU. Change everything in it, and suddenly become in control of the EU. Then they use the money and power to ressurect the Soviet Union and dominate all of Europe. Soon they're on their way to global domination, while the US collapses into Civil War.

I agree....i think the US is heading conservative/fascist way....good luck staying 'democratic' for much longer. Tho personally, and im sure many will agree, that American Democracy could already be gone?!

Damn you Ann Coulter!!!

EU would win.
They wouldn't have fatass soldiers.
our soldiers arent fat only bout 4 percent of the whole population is fat the armys still a lean mean fighting machine

Mr. Witt: You will all be killed like those this morning - and now the sick in their beds! All of you!
Lt. Chard: I don't think so, Mr. Witt. The Army doesn't like more than one disaster in a day.
Lt. Bromhead: Looks bad in the newspapers and upsets civilians at their breakfast.
or
We're not easily frightened. Also, we know how hard it is for an army to cross the channel. Last little corporal who tried came a cropper. So don't threaten or dictate to us until you're marching up Whitehall! And even then we won't listen.

our soldiers arent fat only bout 4 percent of the whole population is fat the armys still a lean mean fighting machine

Total number of overweight adults: (20 through 74 years old) approximately one-third or 58 million Americans.2 (numbers derived from NHANES III, 1988-91, which defines overweight as a BMI value of 27.3 percent or more for women and 27.8 percent or more for men)

http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/Weight_Control/overweight_obesity_facts.htm

Total number of overweight adults: (20 through 74 years old) approximately one-third or 58 million Americans.2 (numbers derived from NHANES III, 1988-91, which defines overweight as a BMI value of 27.3 percent or more for women and 27.8 percent or more for men)

http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Nutrition_Information/Weight_Control/overweight_obesity_facts.htm

Oh yeah, BMI is an accurate measure...

Yes, it is. It's the measure most doctors use.

Yes, it is. It's the measure most doctors use.

But it doesn't even account for muscle weight...

the point is that the number of overweight persons is stil less than half abd all our frontline soldiers are extremely fit mentally and physicaly

The fatness of our civilians aside, the US military men and women are obviously going to be in top physical shape, so that argument is not only stupid but invalid.

Like many have said, its impossible to predict the shape of both the EU and the US 50 years from now but if they were to go to war at the moment I think its pretty clear the US would win.

The US military is the premier fighting force on the planet. The Iraqi Army during Operation Iraqi Freedom was among the top ten armies in the world in terms of numbers. They had relatively modern tanks and doctrine and they just got blown apart. Don't let the shape of Iraq fool you: the US military's problems with the insurgency don't dull their military capacity in a conventional battle. All conventional battles were won by the US in record time with extremly low casualty counts.

Of course, many of you may point out that European militaries, such as France, Britain or Germany are much more techonologically advanced than the Iraqis were. That's true, but first let's make the distinction that Britain would most likely side with the United States in a war, although you could argue that the original poster did say 'US vs EU' so Britain would be included in the EU.

While the EU would have better technology and training, it still doesn't compare to the US military. In conventional battles we would rip you apart. Of course, the US would never be able to occupy or take over Europe: its just too massive and not nearly enough men to hold that area, we're having trouble with Iraq as it is.

If it came down to total war, all out mobilization with everyone in the country involved in the war effort, the US would still win. We are the third most populous nation in the world, although compared to the combined populations of Europe we'd probably have less. Europe's main problem will be its aging population. In Germany, the most populous EU nation, the median age is 42.6 years with a negative population growth rate. In France the median age is 39.1 years with a population growth rate of less than 1 percent. The United Kingdom is 39.3 years, also with less than 1 percent growth rate.

Compared the the EU, the USA has a median age of 36.5 years with a 1 percent growth rate. Doesn't seem like much but if the war does take place in 2050, those numbers will make Europe much older (in average) than the US. Not only that but the native Europeans are actually declining in birth rate even faster than these numbers suggest as most European growth comes from Muslim and other fast-growing minorities who may or may not be loyal to their host countries. If you accuse me of being a racist, im just basing my observations here on stuff I've seen in my visits to Germany or heard in the news, best example were those riots in France not too long ago.

Much more likely than a war is revolution or oppression within Europe as the Muslims and the native Europeans battle it out.

After all, Europe has a history of that sort of thing.

If anything, Russia will join the EU. Change everything in it, and suddenly become in control of the EU. Then they use the money and power to ressurect the Soviet Union and dominate all of Europe. Soon they're on their way to global domination, while the US collapses into Civil War.

That would require them getting in in the first place. I really can't see the EU nations being receptive to letting Russia in, and I don't see Russia being willing to ball ball in the short-term for the chance of staging a coup. Besides, I suspect that most of the current EU member nations would rather see the entire structure dissolve than see it in the hands of a power like Russia. An important thing to remember about the EU is that, unlike the US, there are few real penalties for walking away.

I mean, really, even 50 years down the road I can't see any moderate member states siding with a power like Russia in a war to keep a another state from breaking away.

hey...

why would they fight anyway? I doubt they would. If they ever did, one or both would have to be quite different from the EU and US of today.
fresh water. the next world war will be fought over fresh water, so the EU goes to war with US, which annexed Canada in 2043.
EU loses, since the war is overseas, launches missiles to prevent a counterinvasion, and China wins.
I have spoken.

Yes, it is. It's the measure most doctors use.


Not really. It used to be a joke around the gym that I used to go to that the more harcore someone was about weightlifting the more overweight the BMI put them. Someone who is 6'1" at 230 pounds is considered obese whether they have 3% or 30% body fat. I find it hard to take seriously a scale that considers someone unhealthy even though they have single digit body fat and a resting heart rate under 60bpm.

One of the major problems with the BMI is that it has no way to adjust for different build, it assumes that everyone falls within the normal range. I have a very broad build(50" shoulder measurement) with a very large bone structure and even if I lost 90 pounds I'd be considered overweight. Now, I won't deny that I could lose some weight, but losing 90 pounds would require me to lose not just a significant amount of fat but considerable muscle mass as well.

the USA will win
in 50 yeas time power will have been returned to the states and the people, our militay will be the most efishiont in the world, we will have found a way to bring back washington who will immedatly start traingt our solders to fight in small strike units through the use of underhand tacticks. the Un oth other hand will still relie on standered forese not to mention they will spend so much time bickering with them selves that nothing would ever get done

If the EU tried to invade the US, the US would win. Even if our military lost, the soldiers of the EU would face such an insurgency, it would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a peaceful protest.

If the EU tried to invade the US, the US would win. Even if our military lost, the soldiers of the EU would face such an insurgency, it would make the insurgency in Iraq look like a peaceful protest.
The UN building with all the dignataries in it, except for those of the warring parties, would be leveled in an airstrike. So no one would be left to moan if the rednecks uuh..I mean civilians get a little..roughed up. There wouldn't many civilians left to ummm...protest.

The sheer amount of self-indulgent nationalistic prick-waving coming from both sides of the argmument in this thread has given me a headache.

Honestly... :(

fresh water. the next world war will be fought over fresh water, so the EU goes to war with US, which annexed Canada in 2043.
EU loses, since the war is overseas, launches missiles to prevent a counterinvasion, and China wins.
I have spoken.
But... They would probably expend large quantities of water suppling there army, and the losing side would poison there water before the other gets it.

Might as well make it a 2006 scenario because the 2050 scenario is highly impossible to see. It's like people from 1951 predicting the 2001 9/11 attacks.

Anyway, the only way the EU has a hope of winning would be to be more unfied in their efforts and to have one common goal, winning such a war. This would require all EU members to take part, and I doubt that all of the major EU players (UK, France, etc.) will want to gamble the well-being of their entire nation for whatever conflict they may have with the U.S.

Also, the war escalating into a nuclear war is also an issue to be considered by both the EU and the US. Although the US has a greater nuclear strike capacity.

The whole scenario is stupid anyway. Why do people want the EU and the US to fight so badly? Do they not realize the immense political, economic, and social consequences to be faced by the entire world no matter who the winner is?

Personally right now, the US would win, but in 2050, i reckon the EU. The EU will be the next superpowers. If the US were to invade the EU, i reckon the terrain would knock them around pretty hard...

Personally right now, the US would win, but in 2050, i reckon the EU. The EU will be the next superpowers. If the US were to invade the EU, i reckon the terrain would knock them around pretty hard...
Yeah, stopped us last time...

Anyway, hopefully by then, free trade will have eliminated the need for large militaries and war will be impossible.

The whole scenario is stupid anyway. Why do people want the EU and the US to fight so badly? Do they not realize the immense political, economic, and social consequences to be faced by the entire world no matter who the winner is?

People want to see the fight because, right now, Europe is beginning to feel powerless. Their empires have crumbled, they are no longer the biggest players in any major buisnesses, they either have or are surrounded by stagnating economies, they see their political power in the rest of the world beginning to wane, they are all sorts of nasty social problems on the domestic front, and(in the eyes of it's supporters) the EU represents the best way to regain former glory.

All nationalistic movements need an enemy, and the US makes a good contender. It is a successful, arrogant, and often crude upstart of a nation that has, over the course of just a few generations, taken Europe's place in the world. The US can be painted as usurpers, it can be painted as too capitalist, it can be painted as a nation of traitors and expats who abandoned Europe in the search for greed or personal advancement beyond one's class, and there is no denying that American leaders generally don't bother to be humble. Most importantly, America is perceived to be a nation of Whites, a nation of people whom it is ok to hate because they do not belong to any protected class. In short, America makes a good scapegoat for a people who are trying to find their place in a new and changing world.

Still, I agree that the discussion is somewhat moot. The Us and EU will never come to blows because, in the end the EU knows the same thing that the USSR knew. You can attack America, and in a fair fight you might be able to win, but America doesn't fight fair when it's back is to the wall- no one does. No matter how bad relations might get between the EU and the US(which I find doubtful, we still have more in common than we have apart) in a real war the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction still reigns supreme. You cannot assume that a nuclear exchange is out of the question because there is no way the US military would give up that option. Even during the current Iraq conflict the US military brought small tactical nukes to hold as a worst-case-scenario reserve.

The moment a defined foriegn entity set boots on a shore or dropped a bomb on a city the generals would go apeshit. ICBMs would be in the air and pilots would be crossing the atlantic packed to the gills with meth and ready to die to deliver their payloads. Everyone knows thats the truth with any of the major nuclear powers. The US, Russia, China, why would anyone attack a country like that out in the open knowing what the likely first response would be?

The problem with most of this discussion has been that there seems to be the perception that war is like a simulation. It is not a gentleman's conflict and it is not a game in which you can turn off the nuclear option or accurately predict outcomes. War is, at the bottom line, a situation in which human beings bring the full force of their evolution into destorying one another. If you kill your enemy, it doesn't matter if half, or two thirds, or 99.9% of your men are killed in the process, you call it a win when either they are gone and you aren't or they wave a white flag. Neither America nor Europe has the stomach for that kind of conflict.