"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
This message has been edited by Western_Commander on Nov 13, 2004 6:54 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
USA. The American navy would win the war. And the population of the EU would be about 10.
The USA would loose lots of ships and aircraft, but the massive US Navy would just ruin the current European navy, Navy fighter-bobmers would wreak havoc on Europe. Marines and Airborne would take UK as their fist objective. Massive, Mainland europe would be taken to the stone age, with conventional weapons. I mean the year would last at least 3 years though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"deeds, not words"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Youre right it would be all Naval at first but who many carriers does the US have and the EU
What is numbers in subs/destroyers/crusiers/frigates/ etc.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
""USA. The American navy would win the war. And the population of the EU would be about 10.
The USA would loose lots of ships and aircraft, but the massive US Navy would just ruin the current European navy, Navy fighter-bobmers would wreak havoc on Europe. Marines and Airborne would take UK as their fist objective. Massive, Mainland europe would be taken to the stone age, with conventional weapons. I mean the year would last at least 3 years though.""
You are right on target, well as long as all the Europeans used was sticks and stones, LOL.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The US navy has 12 aircraft carriers versus the Charles deGaulle; sorry but the Harrier-carriers of the RN, Spanish and Italian simply don't matter. Each USN carrier can hold up to 100 combat aircraft and if the US deploys 8, the USN carrier air wings alone probably have more aircraft than the EU.
That being said, I don't think it is realistic to count the UK as part of the EU camp. The British have proven time and again that their loyalty is stronger towards their anglophone cousins in North America than it is towards Europe. And given that Britain's military is the EU's strongest, that doesn't bode too well for the rest of the EU.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The Europeans should each join up and each Nation act as a State and give 1 well equiped and trained division (the small ones) the larger ones giving 5 divisions. This will be more than enough in terms of numbers and training an equipment to stop the US invasion. The rest can be spent on Naval Arms.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The United States certainly couldn't invade the European Union. Europe naturally couldn't do the same thing. The Europeans would kick the crap out of any invasion force the United States sends against Europe. And the US wouldn't dare launch a nuclear attack, because then we'd all be screwed.
“Italy unfortunately has been long excluded from the number of European powers. If Italians today are worthy of resuming their rights, someday they will see their country arise with glory among the powers of the earth.”--Napoleone Buonaparte
I support Kyle Broslowski
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
the EU union would win.
the USA is no big deal, nuke washington and the country of cowards (the USA) would give up.
EU technology is also very good, even equal or better than that of the USA.
you people count the USA as the most powerful, just because they say so, it aint true.
we all know how veitnam and the USSR beat the $hit out of the USA in the veitnam war.
so they got a big navy, so what. the new american virginia sub is not as good as it seems, little german wolf subs could destroy all of the USA's navy. and without a navy the USA is defence less. now you can attack the Island of north america from all sides, and thats probably when the USA would give up.
USA won in most of the wars that it fought, because they fought against arabs who use inferior technology, and are also cowards (todays arabs are brave because you got to have a lot of guts to be a suicied bomber).
This message has been edited by shocktrooper on Nov 14, 2004 8:44 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I would have thought the situation in iraq would have shown just how impossible an invasion of 1st world country would be for america.Let alone an invasion of 25+ united 1st world countries...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
LOL Nero, I thought you believed the invasion of Iraq has been a success?
Seriously though, the USA did not convert to a full wartime economy for the Iraq war; which it would surely have to do for a European war. I suppose we would also have to better define the parameters of invasion. If the objective is to conquer all of the EU then no, the USA can't do this. But I am sure the USA could successfully annexe part of the EU, i.e. conquer the weaker states like Portugal and Spain, and probably Italy at best.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It is almost(lol) succesful,but Iraq is a poor nation of only 24 million and only a minority of iraqis are actually fighting against the americans.Imagine if america tried that against a rich nation of say 45 million,where ALL the population would put up a fight??? They wouldnt have a chance,they would have to resort to genocide...
Dont forget aswell,that the EU is an economic superpower,its economy is only slightly smaller than that of the USA.If the USA went to war economy so would the Europe.The thing is the EU has 160 million more people...how the hell does the USA go about invading a 1st world state that is spending roughly $2 trillion plus on defense and can call nearly 110 million men up for military service???
I think concerning portugal,spain and italy you may have a point.In the early stages of any war,spain and especially portugal would be extremely vunerable.But in the end,any occupying force in portugal,spain would be kicked out.Italy on the other hand is a natural fortress and i doubt any USA general would try an invasion there
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Seriously though, the USA did not convert to a full wartime economy for the Iraq war; which it would surely have to do for a European war. I suppose we would also have to better define the parameters of invasion. If the objective is to conquer all of the EU then no, the USA can't do this. But I am sure the USA could successfully annexe part of the EU, i.e. conquer the weaker states like Portugal and Spain, and probably Italy at best.
The United States can't invade Italy or Spain, those two countries are way too impossible to invade. The best the United States could take is Portugal, and that is only if the rest of the European Union refuses to aid Portugal against the United States. And America would be gain immense losses fighting the Portuguese. Portugal is not Iraq.
“Italy unfortunately has been long excluded from the number of European powers. If Italians today are worthy of resuming their rights, someday they will see their country arise with glory among the powers of the earth.”--Napoleone Buonaparte
I support Kyle Broslowski
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Hence my population count of Europe being 10. USA will just Napalm and carpet bomb everything. Make Europe a barren wasteland. I think you underestimate what the US Navy is capable of, Hey they're a nice airbase in the Azures too .... mwhahahaha
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"deeds, not words"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
The biggest reason the U.S. would win is because the europeans take forever to decide on anything. The U.S. doesn't have that liability and therefore would win any war with the EU due to that alone. Even the most staunch EU person has to realize that the EU militaries are not a single unit like the U.S. is.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
'Hence my population count of Europe being 10. USA will just Napalm and carpet bomb everything. Make Europe a barren wasteland. I think you underestimate what the US Navy is capable of, Hey they're a nice airbase in the Azures too .... mwhahahaha'
and you obviosuly underesitmate the power of thousands of anti-ship missiles that europe could produce to annihilate any carrier force sent at them.Even then,the USN air wing is no where near strong enough to defeat a combined european airforce....above europe!!! Ground to air missiles would rip US bombers to pieces.Clearly,there is no 'carpet bombing' option.
Fantaros,
The scenario clearly says the EU v the USA.
Even if you were right and EU wasnt united enough,where does america start? how does it launch its invasion? which country goes first??
btw,Best choose a small country because there isnt a chance in hell the US could successfully invade any of the big european countries...united or not..
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I disagree. Furthermore my statement still holds true, the biggest reason why the EU can NEVER win a war with the U.S. is because it is not militarily coordinated enough to do so and because you euro's take forever to decide on anything. I would also like to add a flip side to this. The EU can in no way, shape or form invade the U.S.. You would be crushed easily. Oh btw, I am right. The EU is not united enough so don't say "if".
This message has been edited by Fantaros on Nov 14, 2004 6:58 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Thousands of Anti-ship missles, I doubt that even the EU could spew out thousands of Anti-Ship missles in under 2 weeks. And I don't feel that EU Air defenses are all that great, Russia has great air defenses, bu the EU couldn't deal with all the B-2s, F-117s bombing Airfeilds and factories. Not to mention Thousands of cruise missles. And to get to the carriers you'd have to get through the largest vany on earth 5 times over.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"deeds, not words"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come—I feel eventually there will come—the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.
Winston Churchill
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Come on Manos, do you really believe that the European Parliament would sit an debate and debate if the United States is attacking? Please tell me you're kidding!
“Italy unfortunately has been long excluded from the number of European powers. If Italians today are worthy of resuming their rights, someday they will see their country arise with glory among the powers of the earth.”--Napoleone Buonaparte
I support Kyle Broslowski
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Even then,the USN air wing is no where near strong enough to defeat a combined european airforce....above europe!!! Ground to air missiles would rip US bombers to pieces.Clearly,there is no 'carpet bombing' option.
Let's take the French AF, probably the EU's best. France has aprox. 530 combat aircraft;
10 Rafale Ms
24 Super Étandards
96 of them are Mirage F-1s, which are at best equivalent to the F-4E.
165 are Mirage 2000s, which are at best equivalent to the F-18C.
5 X Mirage IVs
25 Jaguars, which are also not any better than the F-4E.
Compare that with a typical USN carrier air wing (augmented to 100 during a major war) that would have 90 F-18Es, F-18Cs and/or F-14s, and I would say the qualitative advantage lies squarely with the USN. Granted, the European AF will have the added bonus of SAMs but as of now France and the EU rely mostly on the Hawk or Rapier SAMs; Asters are not that widely deployed.
BTW, I forgot to add, I got my numbers from the academic journal Military Balance, vol. 104, Issue 1, 2004-2005
This message has been edited by Diunei on Nov 15, 2004 4:44 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
General Characteristics, Nimitz Class
Builder: Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant: Two nuclear reactors, four shafts
Length, overall: 1,092 feet (332.85 meters)
Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam: 134 feet (40.84 meters)
Displacement: Approx. 97,000 tons (87,996.9 metric tons) full load
Speed: 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Aircraft: 85
Cost: about $4.5 billion each
Ships:
USS Nimitz (CVN 68), San Diego, Calif.
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), Newport News, Va.
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Bremerton, Wash.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71), Norfolk, Va.
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72), Everett, Wash.
USS George Washington (CVN 73), Norfolk, Va.
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), San Diego, Calif.
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), Norfolk, Va.
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), San Diego, Calif.
George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) (keel laying 6 Sept 2003)
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,200 - Air Wing: 2,480
Armament: Two or three (depending on modification) NATO Sea Sparrow launchers, 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts: (3 on Nimitz and Dwight D. Eisenhower and 4 on Vinson and later ships of the class.)
Date Deployed: May 3, 1975 (USS Nimitz)
General Characteristics, Enterprise
Builders: Newport News Shipbuilding Co., Newport News, Va.
Power Plant: Eight nuclear reactors, four shafts
Length, overall: 1,101 feet 2 inches (335.64 meters)
Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (75.6 meters)
Beam: 133 feet (39.9 meters)
Displacement: 89,600 tons ( 81,283.8 metric tons) full load
Speed: 30+ knots (34.5 miles per hour)
Aircraft: 85
Ship:USS Enterprise (CVN 65), Norfolk, Va.
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,350 - Air Wing 2,480
Armament: Two Sea Sparrow missile launchers, three Phalanx 20 mm CIWS mounts
Date Deployed: November 25, 1961 (USS Enterprise)
General Characteristics, John F. Kennedy
Builders: Newport News Shipbuilding, Newport News, Va.
Power Plant: Eight boilers, four shafts, 280,000 total shaft horsepower
Length, overall: 1052 feet (315.6 meters)
Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam: 130 feet (39.6 meters)
Displacement: 82,000 tons (74,389.1 metric tons) full load
Speed: 30+ knots (34.5 miles per hour)
Aircraft: Approximately 85.
Ship: USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67); Mayport, Fla.
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,117 - Air Wing 2,480
Armament: Sea Sparrow missiles with box launchers, Three 20mm Phalanx CIWS
Date Deployed: September 7, 1968
General Characteristics, Kitty Hawk Class
Builders: New York Ship Building Corp., Camden, N.J.
Power Plant: Eight boilers, four geared steam turbines, four shafts, 280,000 shaft horsepower.
Length, overall: 1062.5 feet (323.8 meters)
Flight Deck Width: 252 feet (76.8 meters)
Beam: 130 feet (39 meters)
Displacement: Approx. 80,800 tons (73,300.5 metric tons) full load
Speed: 30+ knots (34.5+ miles per hour)
Aircraft: 85
Ships:
USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), Yokosuka, Japan
Crew: Ship's Company: 3,150 - Air Wing: 2,480
Armament: Sea Sparrow launchers, 3 20mm Phalanx CIWS mounts
Date Deployed: April 29, 1961 (USS Kitty Hawk)
10 x 85 = 850. (I'm assuming they'll leave 2 at home on rotation/defense)
So lets say assuming they're at 100 planes per ship, that there will be 85 figters, That's a hell of a lot of F-18Cs, F-18E/Fs and F-14s.
Not to mention the easy airbase of the Azures wich F-22s and Air-to-Air refeullers and B-52 and B-2s and everything could fly from. Not to mention the B-2s could strike from within the USA. Now as for the safetly of the carriers the USN could just amass huge amout of ships arount the carriers, more than usual. The could put op a literal ring of steel around thr carriers, that could take out any incoming aircraft or subs.
Thats not mentioning the
21 B-2s
95 B-1bs
85(+9 Reserve) B-52s.
I'm researching the EU airforce now ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"deeds, not words"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I would love to see some pictures or specs on the new aircraft carriers that are coming out...if they are any in production or R&D
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
No one would deploy more than 1/2 of their navy into an initial conflict, plus on those super carriers, only 1/2 the aircraft are combat Jets, the rest are support planes [jamming, EW, Recon, helos, ASW etc].
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
First of all, No country would be stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. all that would happen is M.A.D. Bush isnt even that retarded. Second of all, when is this battle going to take place? Now, 10 years from now, 20? Right now i cant give it to either side.
EU has numbers, true. But the only country with any true military on par with the US is the UK. The countries of the EU had a choice between following the US in building huge supercarriers or the small carriers that they use now. For me, I believe they made the wrong choice. The USN deploys carriers in carrier groups with the intent to keep the carrier safe while the aircraft from the carrier takes out the enemy. With the aegis destroyer in the group it is a force to be reckoned with. used in conjunction with 2-4 carrier groups, it is pretty much unstoppable. but that is at sea. as soon as you get in range of land based fighter/bomber's the EU #'s kick in. this is where things get wierd. We can't expect to control the skies over europe without extreame attrition rates, there are just too many countries with air forces.
It is my belief that the US could not take Europe in any sort of land based opperation. Anybody who says that "we did it in WWII, and we could do it again" is more stupid than Bush(jr. not sr.). The US doesnt have the man power for any true first world invasion. even in iraq, alot of troops are mercs under contract. We dont have the numbers we had in WWII. Technology only goes so far. Not to mention we would open ourselves up to attack by sending basically the entire USN atlantic fleet to europe.
p.s. how does europe deploy it's navy?
their are 11 carriers, true. but how many are in the atlantic? the US wouldn't move their entire navy through the panama canal. that would just be dumb. I assume there are about 5 carriers and their groups in the atlantic. so about 480 aircraft, 300-380 of those being fighters and fighter/bombers
This message has been edited by darkjedi071289 on Nov 16, 2004 10:33 PM This message has been edited by darkjedi071289 on Nov 16, 2004 10:25 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You say EU has 11 carriers but I am not so sure about that. And those Harrier-carriers don't compare with USN carriers; only the French Charles de Gaulle carrier can compare, and even then its air wing is only half of that found on a USN carrier.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
European Union Could never be invaded.It is not easy for the Americans to deal with a bunch of Iraqi insurgents fighting with mortars and kalashnikovs,imagine fighting against the richest european countries.Where the American Army will be staioned? In the Ocean alone? In what land could they deploy troops...When you attack another country,the defender could have all its citizens fighting against the enemy,
A Carrier will either try to hit around England and the Nordic Sea, but even there they cant be staying Static in the middle of the Sea. Bombing Alone a country doesnt make you a winner.Just because Iraq had no planes,tanks and anti air defense, that doesnt mean that England doesnt.How can you compare few carriers against the biggest Carrier which is the ISLAND itself.It is not impossible to sink those sitting ducks,how can you sink entire Island like England. THen you got to deploy troops, and tanks...They will be slaughtered anywhere.No European country has the geopolitical disadvantage Iraq has.Remember Europe is not a desert, but it has plenty of mountains,and forests that could make any atacking country hard to approach.
How a Carrier could enter Gibraltar?
How could they stay in the Mediterrenenan,
Mediterrenean countries like Spain,Portugal,France,Italy, and Greece, could have a practice target right in the middle of the sea,all coutries capable of hitting the target with missiles,
And there are some great Air forces out there,that will be impossible to go and attack their Airbase.
Sweeden
england
france
germany
switzerland
greece
italy
spain
netherlands
poland
etc
have very good Air Forces, all cappable of carrying out missions.
They have one target while the USA will have only one choice, to attack one by one periodically.
Assuming Portugal gets the hit first,,,
all other European countries can have multiple sneack atacks against the USA and retreat back to their base or an allie base.
To make things even simpler the only thing that the European Union needs to do is to achieve sinking the Carriers.That could be very easy once they enter the mediterrenean which they could never enter for obvious reasons.Therefore this war could be impossible for them, and they could go back to the Pacific, and then try again with an easier opponent like Iraq.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Silly, the Pacific fleet would use the Soyuz canal. LEts not forget people that a lot of EU airforces operate US fighters which cannot attack other US fighters without a computer swap/targetting swap which is costly and takes a lot of time and skill. I think your forgetting that the USA is going to go straight for the airfeilds in UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, France etc... The only airforce that would be safe is Sweedens because the Gripens can land on those little roads in the country side, really an amazing little plane, certainly the best bang for buck in all of the world's airforces.
Now, there are going to be an insane amount of cruise missles launched from ships and subs alike, thay will of course, be targetting airfeilds and industry. No to mention the AZURES. Thats a nice air and naval base for the Americans to have. Easy to take good airfeilds basically all of the Azures could become a huge military installation.
People also don't seem to be taking into account that the US can Deploy its B-2s from within the US to strike at targets in mainlan Europe.
I almost for got about ICeland too, that a good airforce base and a pretty soft target as well. The USA wouldn't just win by bombing and wining the massive airwar, they would have to basically expel all European citizens or ...commit Genocide to win. There is no way to occupy Europe, not from an amphibious invasion. Say this war lasted a few decades and the USA got a fot hold , but thats all what if questions....
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"deeds, not words"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
USA. The American navy would win the war. And the population of the EU would be about 10.
The USA would loose lots of ships and aircraft, but the massive US Navy would just ruin the current European navy, Navy fighter-bobmers would wreak havoc on Europe. Marines and Airborne would take UK as their fist objective. Massive, Mainland europe would be taken to the stone age, with conventional weapons. I mean the year would last at least 3 years though.
-------------------------------------------------------
I can´t wait the day UK will be finally liberated, it will be the 52nd state?
and the Berlim wall will be re-built, because France troops will be standing on another side together with russians... the italian will surrender before they are attacked, because they always wnat to align with the winner.
Portuguese, oh, this banana republic, will be starving... the only country that will give a fight is France.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Again, the UK is closer to the USA so it would, at worst, be neutral. But even if it weren't neutral, why would the US his the UK first, when it could easity capture the Azores? Furthermore, why would the USA go through the Mediterranian when it would be much easier (and wiser IMHO) to strike Portugal next? Because once the USMC were to capture the Azores, the USAF can fly in reinforcements; from there the USA could launch airstrikes from both the Azores and carriers. Furthermore, even if Europe went to a full wartime economy, much of that industry would be attacked and hence disabled, while the US would most likely be unscathed since the EU navies could not get across the Atlantic to attack the US industrial heartland.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"The 51st state is Canada, the 52nd would be the UK."
Dumbest post ever. Canada and the UK will never be a part of the US. Canadians love the states but we also hate them, and im pretty sure by what my relitaves say..they hate the US.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
No, that dubious honour belongs to you for saying that Québec has the same geographical size as China.
Canada and the UK will never be a part of the US. Canadians love the states but we also hate them, and im pretty sure by what my relitaves say..they hate the US.
Just look at the terms of NAFTA and you will see that Washington owns the Canadian economy; in fact, the US has owned the Canadian economy ever since the 1965 Auto Pact. And post-WWII the UK chose to follow Washington's policy as a means to be a "player."
This message has been edited by Diunei on Nov 18, 2004 3:45 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
It is a sad thing from the Canadian perspective. Canada needs to diversify its economy and strengthen its domestic markets.
But Americans have had a boner for Canada ever since the 13 colonies seperated from the Crown. Why else would they have purchased Alaska other than to serve as a pincer movement on Canada?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Not to mention the back taxes the USA would have to pay to the Crown....LOL!
Since we are on that subject, I wonder if the New England states ever tried to join the Commonwealth? Or if they were invited? And would the USA ever join, or be invited to do so?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
They can start by paying for all the tea they dumped into Boston Harbour
about the commonwealth, there is nothing stoping them, you dont nead the queen to be your head of state only recognise her as head of the commonwealth, hell they let Camaroon in and about 2 square feet of there country was in the old British Empirer for about 3 weeks or somethings stupid like that.
lol but some how I dont see the US ever wanting to do anything like that, its just not in there nature
Among other evils which being unarmed brings you it causes you to be despised - Niccolo Machiavelli
Cher Mr Sampaix, vous êtes en ce moment en train de lire ces quelques lignes. Ce qui signifie que vous êtes toujours présent sur ce forum. Partez.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Very true about increasing domestic markets, but still, most of their trade goes to us and most of our trade goes to them, it only makes sence since we are really the only neighbouring countries.
UK will never become part of the US
As far as the US and UK. The UK was big daddy, and now the son has become stronger than the father... can you see the son taking over the father, no because the father has too many sons
You actually remember me saying that...wow you have too much time on your hands.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
You actually remember me saying that...wow you have too much time on your hands.
Wow, clap clap what an original comeback clap clap clap! The reason I can remember that is because (a) I have a good memory, and (b) NOBODY has yet to top your cretinous remark.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"The 51st state is Canada, the 52nd would be the UK."
Thanks Diunei for refreshing our minds. what about the Puerto Rico?
Diunei the US already controls the azores, this is the place where they had War Summit before the invasion of Iraq. they have their military bases there. Regarding UK it is already a US colony, since it does all what the americans wants, all the american needs is to turn the entire british island into casino where we all will go to smoke cubans cigarettes and find some hot girls... Canada is like Cuba a rebel country
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I geuss you've never heard of MOAB and Daisy Cutters and all that. Leave no building or person standing. Thats how airpower wins. Just bomb everything and rebuild it later, with your own citizens.
And in a time of war the US would massively increase Army numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"deeds, not words"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This way there is an actual invasion and taking of land. No nuclear fallout, and the ability to use resources again.
@Dragon
Your right and wrong about technologies. The Germans in WW2 had overwhelmingly superior technology, but lost becasue the enemy numbers were so much higher and the strategies of the highest leadership(Hitler). Look at the Sherman Vs. the Tiger. You would need at least 3-4 Shermans for every one Tiger. Now if Germany had, had about 5,000 Tigers instead of 1,500 the world would be a different place. The Me-262 was the first jet fighter but was never built in mass because of the way the war was going and its complexity. Another thing is the U-boats opposed to Allied subs, far superior. I mean if you have superior numbers technology isn't has big and issue for you as it is for the enemy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"deeds, not words"
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
1)Why is the USA at war with Europe?
2)Why the idea that USA doesn't have the manpower to conduct a 'total war'?
In 1945 the armed forces had over 11 million personel, 9 million in the
army (ground and air forces); this out of a population of approx. 133
million.
3)If Europe starts a war with USA, which countries would actively be
belligerents (allied with USA or EU)?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
ther's a few problems with your arguements. the US has closer to 40 carriers. Vietnam is not proof of America getting beat by the EU. Vietnam was a limited war that's why it didn't work. idiot politicians tried to control it. that was the only war that America's fought in that we didn't keep the land we took over. if we had fought at outr full strength we would have smacked the Viet-Kong down. the EU would do good if they were commanded by Germans. here's another thing, Europe most likely will not stay peaceful like this long. you guys have been fighting each other for thousands of years i doubt you guys will stay friends. there's too much hate and predjudices among ethnicities.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Welcome Jonathan Knight. I am curious about how you arrived at 40 carriers. Are you including LPDs and LHAs in that number? Are you also including retired carriers, such as the Forestall-class, for example?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
*Europe most likely will not stay peaceful like this long. you guys have been fighting each other for thousands of years i doubt you guys will stay friends. there's too much hate and predjudices among ethnicities.*
Now is this just random hope or a compleate lack of knowlage?, war between EU state's now is about as likely as me winning the lottery and being on Mar's at the same time during a solar eclipse
(GLAINE AR GCROI, NEART AR NGEAG AGUS BEART DE REIR ARM MBRIARTHAR)
Dragon aka pee diddly piddly
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I find it hard to believe that the UK would fight the US.. EU would have to cope without UK.. Thats a major loss for the EU
Sweden would never enter into this conflict. Sweden is firstly still Neutral. Secondly most of the pop in Sweden is very EU critical. So EU would have to be without Sweden in this conflict. Also quite a major loss mostly because of the loss of Swedish Airforce.
The Eastern bloc of EU are more US friendly than EU friendly eventhough they are a part of EU. Most likely EU would not have them in this conflict.
Dont think the EU would have much of a chance without these countries...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
if by EU you only mean EU then USA might just scrape a victory but wouldnt have enough resourses to keep EU but if you mean europe then america would be defeated if they had to face Russia with her huge soze and scattered population
wassup see ya laterz.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
I find it hard to believe that the UK would fight the US.. EU would have to cope without UK.. Thats a major loss for the EU
Sweden would never enter into this conflict. Sweden is firstly still Neutral. Secondly most of the pop in Sweden is very EU critical. So EU would have to be without Sweden in this conflict. Also quite a major loss mostly because of the loss of Swedish Airforce.
The Eastern bloc of EU are more US friendly than EU friendly eventhough they are a part of EU. Most likely EU would not have them in this conflict.
Dont think the EU would have much of a chance without these countries...
==
Seldom have I read such a flawed analysis, if it could be called an analysis in the first place.
Here's something to balance up the joke you just made: China and Russia will join the EU since... well let's face it, nobody likes the US under Bush anyway.
Watch the Daily Show with Jon Stewart!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
- At this moment in time; our focus is to restore the old WAFF, I would like your cooperation to temperory refrain to posting and talking other topic at this moment.
- The community focus should be to restore and to regroup the WAFF. Thanks.
assuming that the US attacks, the only real treat are the combined landforces and the EU SSK fleet;
since the USN lacks in ASW capabilities against diesel subs, both ocean goning and coastal.
The US Surface fleet is mainly fitted to track and engage other surface combatants and land targets.
The SSN fleet is still built on cold-war era principals; tracking other SSNs and SSBNs and in recent
years engaging land targets but not SSKs.
Numerous exercises over the years have proven this. Complete carrier groups got their ass kicked and
the attacking SSK managed to sneak away.
In a real US-EU conflict, the combined EU surface fleet is no match for the USN. But the SSK fleet is
going to be the pain in the ass.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
AAs I see it, it would be close.
The EU would suddenly be buying lots of subs, all sort of missiles, Sam’s and the latest air craft from Russia.
I could almost see the EU air force double with in months with the addition of the latest Russian Air craft. And the US Aircraft being downed by the Sam's that EU has most of not to mention the latest S-400 that will be produced under licence. EU can have enormous building capacity like they have shown in the WW2.
By the end of the war Allies build one War ship per day not to mention tanks and Air craft.
US would have to bomb every industrial estate, port, airport, military buildings etc, that would be at least 30-40 thousand cruise missiles most likely 5 time that if you look at IRAQ.
In Iraq they fired around 7000 and they had to stop as they were running out, also bullets for the army are also running out. They would have had to prepare for 5 years or more for the war, and try to keep it secret for 5 years that you will be invading EU. (I don’t think so).
Also The EU would notice that US is moving all of it's troops out of EU. And Questions will be asked.
Same applies to the navy leaving US ports as massive scale.
It will take weeks for US to get to EU if they make it.
And please stop with the US being the Best and Greatest and so on.
Look at the hype before the war, Oh look at my weapons they are so grate we can do what we want with you, you can if the country is not fighting back.
They had an interview with US soldier inspecting Iraq’s weapons and he himself said that if Iraq wanted to fight it would have been very costly for US.
US is just a big propaganda wheel nothing les nothing more.
Just my observation...
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
This is the conflict that would never happen, because, nobody has the will, and an economy to build and sustain a war with such a wide front. But you are understimating America.
//AAs I see it, it would be close.
The EU would suddenly be buying lots of subs, all sort of missiles, Sam’s and the latest air craft from Russia.
Russia does not have the capability of building Aircrafts at the rate you mention, and even if the EU license the technology, it would take years to start real production.
The same with the navy. There is a limited number of dry docks which will be bombed by US. Communications, and infrastructure to build the building capacity in Europe will be jammed or destroyed. Additionally, the logistics of building advance misiles, it is not as simple to build. It takes a complex network of contractors and different manufacturers to come up with one complete missile. US don't really have to destroy every single military building, port, airport to cause sustancial delays in manufacturing / delivery of new ordinance or wweapons.
However, the US can really, scale his production of ammunition, and bombs to a level that can sustain long term attacks. The only problem I see, is oil. I don't know how we can keep providing fuel to all machinery in used.
There is no equipment that the US procure, that they can't build, and having the know how in hand, it is a matter of national committment to gear the economy arround a war, and raise the level of production (since we have the infrastructure), for any given ordinance or weapon.
If Iraq was willing to fight, the war would not happen. The US picked Iraq, because it is a perfect country to invade given the economic situation of US. It was not picked because, it was an evil country. However, Iraqis should realize, they can benefit big time if they allow the US to liberate them.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
Menem Baba (no login)
Re: European Union vs. United States
No score for this post
September 7 2009, 10:49 AM
Did you mean EU, with membership candidates like Turkey ? If it so things changed, Turkey 2nd larger army of nato and 3rd larger F-16 fleet in the world.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
