# USA Vs. EU



## thrawn (inactive) (Mar 29, 2008)

The USA declared war on EU.
1) Conventional war
2) Nuclear War
If USA rapestomps the Nuclear War, Russia can help EU.


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Mar 29, 2008)

Naval Power wins in a conventional war.

Everyone loses in a nuclear war.


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 29, 2008)

thrawn said:


> The USA declared war on EU.
> 1) Conventional war
> 2) Nuclear War
> If USA rapestomps the Nuclear War, Russia can help EU.



UN won't be able to interfere for either side in this, since France and Britain will stop USA from getting anything for them and USA will stop EU from getting anything.

Now, for this, EU outnumbers USA, I believe, so they won't be able to swarm us.
And as for our economy.
Well, the American market has just now stopped, it seems, so it won't be ease to finance a war against us for the Americans.
Our economy is doing better than your are, at the moment, so we have a higher chance at simply hiring mercenaries like crazy.

And Europol, given sufficient resources, should be more than able to stop FBI and that other group your nation has.

All in all, this was a very bad time to make this thread, sicne the economy for the USA have stopped, in a major area.
Then, add that USA are still stationed in the Middle East?
I can tell you one thing, and that is that the resistance against USA in that area will be very happy to have EU so close there.
The American soldiers there won't live for long, I can promise you that.
And it won't be easy to get more soldiers there with the way your economy is going, so...
Those are dead meat.

Really, this is like a reversed situation of WW2.
Reversed as in that it favors the European economy more than it favors the American one, what with all the crap your president has done over the years.

So, for the first battle, I'd say that a bloodlusted EU edges out USA...and then gets raped by the Russians.
Who then gets raped by the Chinese.
Who then gets raped by the Indians.
Who then gets raped by the Arabs.
Who then proceeds to deal with their own internal conflicts and rape each other.
Then, the economy of the whole damn world is fucked.

All in all, its not a good thing for organizations at the level of EU and USA to wage war against each other.

All in all, the potential of EU, when everything is said and done, is higher than that of the USA, military included.
True, it might take a day or so, but the European leaders will all get in line for the battle, and stop complaining.
Really, the only thing holding back EU right now is the individual leaders and the population of their nations.
When in a war, that won't matter, so nothing will be there to hold it back.
So EU wins, due to superior economical potential and production capacity.

As for the second scenario...no one is so stupid to start that kind of crap.
No one.


----------



## Soul Vibe (Mar 29, 2008)

US wins in a conventional war.  Our Air Force is second to none now because of the F-22, and our Navy has always been number one since World War II

2 is a dumb scenario.  Everyone dies, and no one wins.


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

Espada said:


> US wins in a conventional war.  Our Air Force is second to none now because of the F-22, and our Navy has always been number one since World War II
> 
> 2 is a dumb scenario.  Everyone dies, and no one wins.



I agree, and besides, US has military bases all around Europe


----------



## Aokiji (Mar 29, 2008)

They'd of course get owned first.


----------



## Fang (Mar 29, 2008)

For a second I thought this was Expanded Universe vs the USA and I was like "lolz".

EU gets stomped.


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Aokiji said:


> They'd of course get owned first.


Lol so true 



I Я TWF said:


> For a second I thought this was Expanded Universe vs the USA and I was like "lolz".



I did to I was like WTF is this



I Я TWF said:


> EU gets stomped.



I disagree the entire EU has more muscle than the US in every department except navy. But that can be easily solved by building more ships some thing that can easily be done by the combined EU.


----------



## Fang (Mar 29, 2008)

Do you realize how many carrier fleets the US Navy has to hit the EU with?


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

I Я TWF said:


> Do you realize how many carrier fleets the US Navy has to hit the EU with?



And we can easily strike there carrier fleets from air bases located on land or attack with ballistic missile systems.

Edit: They got 11 carriers


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 29, 2008)

Twix said:


> I agree, and besides, US has military bases all around Europe



And they also have their armies all over the world, while the EU have all their member nations armies available.
You won't be able to get everything at us at once.
Which gives us time to start producing armies.

Not to mention that your economy is starting to get fucked over right about now.
True, it isn't as bad as it could have been, but you guys aren't at the top of your game.


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> And they also have their armies all over the world, while the EU have all their member nations armies available.
> You won't be able to get everything at us at once.
> Which gives us time to start producing armies.





Gig said:


> I disagree the entire EU has more muscle than the US in every department except navy. But that can be easily solved by building more ships some thing that can easily be done by the combined EU.



I'd lol, have you been ignoring the US military assistance to other European countries?



Ax_ said:


> Not to mention that your economy is starting to get fucked over right about now.
> True, it isn't as bad as it could have been, but you guys aren't at the top of your game.



lol, so that's the reason why many US states continuing to prosper? because of economical mess?

did you forget that many European countries especially those old Soviet republics are poor?


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Twix said:


> I'd lol, have you been ignoring the US military assistance to other European countries?



You know those bases belong to the EU not the US we only rent them out The soldiers there would get overwhelmed before they could even play a part in any war. 

They would be cut off from supplies


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 29, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Not to mention that your economy is starting to get fucked over right about now.



Actually, actions have been taken to lessen that problem.  The economy is slowly getting back in shape right now.


----------



## Slips (Mar 29, 2008)

England solos we would just send in a few dozen scoucers and within a week they would of stolen everything in America


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

Gig said:


> You know those bases belong to the EU not the US we only rent them out The soldiers there would get overwhelmed before they could even play a part in any war.
> 
> They would be cut off from supplies



lol, don't you know that US is the one who's providing military arms in some European nations?


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 29, 2008)

Twix said:


> lol, don't you know that US is the one who's providing military arms in some European nations?



And what will they do then?
Take it back against all of EU?
Yeah, good luck with that.

And this is all of EU.
The nations that can't afford to do that for themselves can simply use their population as soldiers that will be equipped by weapons from wealthier EU nations.
This isn't any single European country against USA.
Its all of us against it.


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Twix said:


> lol, don't you know that US is the one who's providing military arms in some European nations?




Yes I do know that the US provides weapons to the weaker EU nations but why would that matter they already have the hard ware it's not like they need the US to use it and Ammo is easily produced. 

Oh and most of the more powerful countries produce there own weapons such as Germany France and the UK they can easily provide weapons to the other nations and if we had to Russia produces and sells a hell of allot of weapons and there just next door to us.


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2008)

USA in a massive, disgusting rapestomp that would only last a matter of weeks. 

People need to study modern military doctrine; the force that can achieve and maintain air superiority wins almost automatically.

There is no force in the world that has any chance of fighting the USAF. You could give Europe every military aircraft in the world and every pilot in the world (save the American ones of course) and they'd still lose badly. One US Navy carrier air wing will solo any Air Force in the world.

Once the US has the sky, the metal rain begins.

Nuclear war the US also stomps. Europe has no intercontinental missile capacity. Their only hope of nuking the US is a handful of nuclear missile submarines, which are vastly inferior to the much larger number of US subs. One would probably get through, but one isn't enough to nuke the entire US, or even the entire east coast. 

Meanwhile the US can glass Europe inside of an hour, and cannot be prevented from doing so by any means.

If Russia helps the nuclear war, then yeah, it's game over.


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue said:


> USA in a massive, disgusting rapestomp that would only last a matter of weeks.
> 
> People need to study modern military doctrine; the force that can achieve and maintain air superiority wins almost automatically.
> 
> ...



Lol this is so fucking biased WTF do you take Europeans for Blue where not some back water civilizations that are using out dated WW2 weapons and 1950s jets like most of the nations the US has stomped in resent years.

Are aircraft are easily on par with your American ones hell are current standard fighter is better than yours all round.   

So one Aircraft carrier soloing is fucking bullshit to the max


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 29, 2008)

People also need to study the economy and learn that USA has screwed themselves over on that point.
Simply put, with everything that is happening in USA today, not to mention outside the world that it has a hand in, it isn't feasible for it to be able to do all the stuff you guys ar etalking about at once.
Meanwhile, EU is economically stronger at this point, everything included.

Basically, thanks to the dealings of EU, it can handle the economy without USA better than USA can handle theirs without EU or any European nation.

Also, why the hell do you people think European armies are inferior in any way?
Technologically, there is no way in hell American aircrafts can solo anything we have.
Its roughly even here, you know.


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2008)

Gig said:


> Lol this is so fucking biased WTF do you take Europeans for Blue where not some back water civilizations are aircraft are easily on par with your American ones hell are current standard fighter is better than yours all round.
> 
> So one Aircraft carrier soloing is fucking bullshit to the max



It's not bullshit at all. What I take Europe for is a bunch of countries which TOGETHER don't spend as much on their militaries as the US.

Check it:


And it's not just a matter of 300 billion vs. 600 billion. Each European country spends its money on itself, usually buying American arms.

America takes that extra 300 billion and invests it in research. Which is why a handful of F-22s wiped out an entire F-15 wing _without a single loss_. 

Know what most European countries fly?
The F-15. And the inferior F-16.

Rape to the stomp. Yes, Europe is advanced technologically and culturally. But the US military is an unstoppable juggernaut.



> Also, why the hell do you people think European armies are inferior in any way?
> Technologically, there is no way in hell American aircrafts can solo anything we have.
> Its roughly even here, you know.


Incorrect. 

Also lol @ people saying economy.
You know the US was in the biggest depression of anything ever when WWII started, right?


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

Gig said:


> Yes I do know that the US provides weapons to the weaker EU nations but why would that matter they already have the hard ware it's not like they need the US to use it and Ammo is easily produced.
> 
> Oh and most of the more powerful countries produce there own weapons such as Germany France and the UK they can easily provide weapons to the other nations and if we had to Russia produces and sells a hell of allot of weapons and there just next door to us.



then what're you talking about that they will just cut-off the supplies? don't you know about navy seals? a squad of navy seals can sabotage a whole military base with, of course they can, cause they we're trained for it, they're the ones who pawns the invicible yugoslavian rebels back in the yugoslavian war


----------



## Aku Shinigami (Mar 29, 2008)

I'd give this to the U.S. for the simple reason that the U.S. military will have a much easier time coordinating than all the seperate E.U. military branches. As for Nuclear war both sides have enough nukes to ensure that everyone dies.


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue, this whole thing is the European Union.
And a bloodlusted one won't have any reason not to gather all the resources it has to build and invent better stuff.
Not to mention hiring mercenaries.

While its true that, at this moment, not as much is spent on that, this is bloodlusted, so what the hell is stopping EU from starting to spend everything that would go to school, reconstruction and support to farmers (god knows theres alot of that) and put it into the military?
With all that, this should be more than enough to outdo USA on that point.

If this is war, why would EU spend money on anything else than winning the war?
Farming and such can be dealt with later.

Right now, its important to win the war.

EDIT:
And about the economy thing.
True, but they got back up after they started spending money on the European war that didn't affect their own country, at least not geographically.
This time, there won't be any European country that want to buy stuff or are willing to put orders on stuff to get the American economy running again.
Its all up to you.
And, by the looks of it,. Bush has screwed that up as well.


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

lol Ax, what do you know about US economy? have you ever been here? lol, why do you think that the some US states are using solar power if the economy is fucked up?


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Twix said:


> then what're you talking about that they will just cut-off the supplies? don't you know about navy seals? a squad of navy seals can sabotage a whole military base with, of course they can, cause they we're trained for it, they're the ones who pawns the invicible yugoslavian rebels back in the yugoslavian war



Oh wow Navy seals it?s not like we don't have any thing similar

Oh and lol at the invisible Yugoslavian rebels you say it as if no one else was there and they where hardly invincible.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Mar 29, 2008)

I lol @ this thread. What a waste of time.


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 29, 2008)

Twix said:


> lol Ax, what do you know about US economy? have you ever been here? lol, why do you think that the some US states are using solar power if the economy is fucked up?



Oh, so it isn't screwed over?
Those who have bought houses and such haven't lost alot of money?
Banks aren't getting into trouble?

Well, imagine that!
Guess every single piece of info I've read about the American economy lately have all been wrong, just because some states are trying to get it rolling again!
Because, obviously, all those machines must obviously have been bought when this all happened, right?


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> I lol @ this thread. What a waste of time.



I kind of agree it reminds me of the US vs the world thread


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 29, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> I lol @ this thread. What a waste of time.



Well, this is what you get when people are bored as hell.


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Blue, this whole thing is the European Union.
> And a bloodlusted one won't have any reason not to gather all the resources it has to build and invent better stuff.
> Not to mention hiring mercenaries.


Mercenaries? What kind of mercenaries do you think are going to fight against a first-world professional army?
And you're apparently under several mistaken impressions:
1. Europe has a significantly greater industrial and research capacity than the US.
It doesn't. Here's another list for you.

About equal. And the US has a massive, MASSIVE, head start.
2. This war will last long enough for much research and development to take place.
It won't. No matter which way it goes, one side or the other will be devastated totally inside of 2 years. 
And that side will be the EU.


> While its true that, at this moment, not as much is spent on that, this is bloodlusted, so what the hell is stopping EU from starting to spend everything that would go to school, reconstruction and support to farmers (god knows theres alot of that) and put it into the military?
> With all that, this should be more than enough to outdo USA on that point.


And what's stopping the US from doing the same?


> If this is war, why would EU spend money on anything else than winning the war?
> Farming and such can be dealt with later.
> 
> Right now, its important to win the war.






> EDIT:
> And about the economy thing.
> True, but they got back up after they started spending money on the European war that didn't affect their own country, at least not geographically.
> This time, there won't be any European country that want to buy stuff or are willing to put orders on stuff to get the American economy running again.
> ...


You are aware America is Europe's biggest trading partner?
And China and Cana buy more from the US than Europe?

Stop grasping at straws. This is not a fight.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Mar 29, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Well, this is what you get when people are bored as hell.



You know what they say about idle hands...


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Oh, so it isn't screwed over?
> Those who have bought houses and such haven't lost alot of money?
> Banks aren't getting into trouble?
> 
> ...



are you saying that professionals are wrong for telling that our economy is blooming? banks, in trouble? what the heck? what the hell is happening in your mind? where do you get those ideas that US economy is fucked up? why're we're so happy this past few days, happy like we're in heaven?


----------



## Fang (Mar 29, 2008)

Lol at California's economy in general.

And I'm still loling if people think dozens or hundreds of US soldiers and medical personal in the EU are stopping them from taking those bases back.


----------



## kchi55 (Mar 29, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Blue, this whole thing is the European Union.
> And a bloodlusted one won't have any reason not to gather all the resources it has to build and invent better stuff.
> Not to mention hiring mercenaries.
> 
> ...



Since when did bloodlusting someone stop them from needing to eat?  You need farming to sustain a military force, and since the EU numbers are likely greater than the United States, the EU will have to expend more resources on that than the United States does.
Cutting spending in social sectors also takes a hit on the morale of the population, you can't win an unpopular war, just look at the US right now.
Anyways, you can pour as much money into the war effort as you want, but the key to innovations in military technology is time, and remarkable engineering, extra money isn't buying that, not efficiently anyway.

As for the point on economy, the ECB is worried about its own economy right now because of the falling dollar and gradual rise in American inflation, that shows that the American economy is vital to the EU, which is why the ECB and BoJ could be leaning toward international intervention to set the American dollar back up at an agreeable price point.  You don't see the United States making any accommodations for the ECB or BoJ.

Anyways, America's largest trading partner right now is Canada, with China pretty high on that list as well, the US will take a hit sure, but so will the EU.

I will admit though, that the United States is definitely heading towards recession right now, and I don't think it's avoidable at this point, inflation only rises as the Federal Reserve keeps slashing interest rates, making for a very volatile stock market.  This is primarily a result of a lack of domestic spending, which is why the US Congress approved of the 50 billion dollar stimulus package that is supposed to take effect this weekend, we'll see how that works out in healing the economy, but my guesses are it's not going to do anything since the American people are stuck in a saving mentality right now.  Should a war begin though, citizens will spring into action and buy whatever they can to spur the American economy, that's hypothetical of a non-bloodlusted America, if it was bloodlusted, GM Motor sales would be through the roof, spurring the economy, as the expansionary monetary policy will finally be in full swing.


----------



## Fang (Mar 29, 2008)

The missile defense systems in EU are pretty formidable, no?


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue said:


> Mercenaries? What kind of mercenaries do you think are going to fight against a first-world professional army?
> And you're apparently under several mistaken impressions:
> 1. Europe has a significantly greater industrial and research capacity than the US.
> It doesn't. Here's another list for you.
> ...


The EU was higher on Both off those and there is no massive head start the EUs avarage tech is about the same.


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2008)

Gig said:


> The EU was higher on Both off those and there is no massive head start the EUs avarage tech is about the same.



We're talking military tech here, where the US is about 30 years ahead. And we're also ignoring the fact that the EU is many distinct, competing nationalities and ethnic groups and the US is one whole.


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue said:


> We're talking military tech here, where the US is about 30 years ahead. And we're also ignoring the fact that the EU is many distinct, _*competing nationalities and ethnic groups and the US is one whole.*_



/thread


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue said:


> *We're talking military tech here, where the US is about 30 years ahead*. And we're also ignoring the fact that the EU is many distinct, competing nationalities and ethnic groups and the US is one whole.



Lol no fucking way 30 years that is bull shit this is all just coming out of your ass now blue.

We also have some thing called the EU security council


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2008)

It's not coming out of my ass you arse, the EU is, right now, using military tech that was first deployed by the US in the early 80s. I'm sorry if that's too black-and-white for you.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Mar 29, 2008)

the EU doesn't go to war together, they are an economic union.

Crippling England and France with a few well placed tactical nukes pretty much wins the war however... i mean come one, after those 2 are down, whats left? Holland, Germany? come one...

The only reason the US military is percieved as being weaker than it is is because when they go into places like Iraq its constantly under the "peace keeping" and "Liberating" banner...if it were under the "Lets fucking kill these towel heads" banner, believe me there would be nothing left in Iraq but a glassed over red stained desert.


Edit: oh and its true...the US is basically the foremost arms supplier to the world. No one makes better killing tools. We supply most of our enemies.


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue said:


> It's not coming out of my ass you arse, the EU is, right now, using military tech that was first deployed by the US in the early 80s. I'm sorry if that's too black-and-white for you.



I'm sorry but this is rubbish every thing we use is on the same level as you I'm sorry to burst your bubble about your nation being best at every thing but sadly it is not true.



~RAGING BONER~ said:


> the EU doesn't go to war together, they are an economic union.
> 
> Crippling England and France with a few well placed tactical nukes pretty much wins the war however... i mean come one, after those 2 are down, whats left? Holland, Germany? come one...
> 
> Edit: oh and its true...the US is basically the foremost arms supplier to the world. No one makes better killing tools. We supply most of our enemies.


 and a well place nuke on New York and Washington would not do the same thing that's your government centre down and your main economic centre down. 

Also Germany is the strongest nation in Europe economically.


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2008)

~RAGING BONER~ said:


> The only reason the US military is percieved as being weaker than it is is because when they go into places like Iraq its constantly under the "peace keeping" and "Liberating" banner...if it were under the "Lets fucking kill these towel heads" banner, believe me there would be nothing left in Iraq but a glassed over red stained desert.


This is something a lot of people miss out on as well.


----------



## Fang (Mar 29, 2008)

The US is only a singular ethnic group? 

Lol.

And I suggest re-examining Nato.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 29, 2008)

Yes, it is true that the EU has most of their troops stationed at home. Its is also true that MANY nations in the EU do not have a 1,000 troops just to themselves. In fact theres a good number of countries such as Italy and several countries that used to belong the USSR that have no more than a few hundred men fighting in their entire armed forces and are protected souly by being members UN.

Most of the EU would fall within hours of actual combat starting there.

The US has a substantial foothold in Germany already.

Most of the EU would fall with little casualties. If things got dicey enough, the US would just institute the draft and bolster their ranks.

Your kidding yourself if you think the forces in the Middle East are going to be vulnerable to against EU. The US has total air superiority over Iraq and Afghanistan naval superiority over most of the region, and superiority on the ground. If that wheren't enough. The US Army had been preparing for second full scale conflict in Iraq since the first Gulf War and that part went off without a hitch. 

To dislodge the US from the Middle East would take too many resources for the EU to gain a substantial to gain a foot hold, and thats even if they somehow managed to ally themselves with the insurgency who can't even put up a fight without relying on acts of terrorism and guerrilla tactics.

If that wheren't bad enough, the US can bring war against the EU on day 1 because we have bases all over Europe. EU cannot do the same thing to us though because there are no foreign bases on US soil. The EU would have to come to the US first to do much of anything, which will be hard to do when ICBMs are reigning down on them as soon as the fight starts.

The EU is basically corn holed. The US may not even need to rely on the draft to fill in their ranks to pull of a win.


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

~RAGING BONER~ said:


> the EU doesn't go to war together, they are an economic union.
> 
> Crippling England and France with a few well placed tactical nukes pretty much wins the war however... i mean come one, after those 2 are down, whats left? Holland, Germany? come one...
> 
> ...



Hell fucking yeah, espceially those last part, their just ignoring that even though it's true


----------



## Blue (Mar 29, 2008)

Gig said:


> I'm sorry but this is rubbish every thing we use is on the same level as you I'm sorry to burst your bubble about your nation being best at every thing but sadly it is not true.



(sigh) Whatever. Look, you've got great food (except for the British), vibrant culture (I loved my trips to Europe) and you're smart and pretty and all that. 

But the EU cannot beat the US in a military confrontation. Nobody can. If California seceded from the US, declared war on the EU, and the rest of the US stayed neutral, it would be a long bloody fight. The fucking Texas National Guard would one-on-one any one European country. This thread is silly.


----------



## -18 (Mar 29, 2008)

US wins

/thread


----------



## Aokiji (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue said:


> We're talking military tech here, where the US is about 30 years ahead. And we're also ignoring the fact that the EU is many distinct, competing nationalities and ethnic groups and the US is one whole.



For the sake of the thread, all EU countries are cooperating. Also, the military tech is similar, only the numbers are big.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Mar 29, 2008)

Gig said:


> and a well place nuke on* New York and Washington *would not do the same thing that's your government centre down and your main economic centre down.



believe it or not that would pretty much guarantee a level of nationalistic fanatiscism the likes of which a European mind can scarcely comprehend. Post 9-11 America would look like a radical left wing country compared to an America which has its 2 capitals destroyed.

forget about fighting until EU surrenders...fighting until EU no longer exists as a land mass would be more likely. The bible belt has so much potential for crazy...you don't even know.


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> Yes, it is true that the EU has most of their troops stationed at home. Its is also true that MANY nations in the EU do not have a 1,000 troops just to themselves. In fact theres a good number of countries such as Italy and several countries that used to belong the USSR that have no more than a few hundred men fighting in their entire armed forces and are protected souly by being members UN.


 sorry but Malta has over 2000 soldiers and they have the second smallest military in Europe only Luxemburg have below 1000 men and we all know that there the leading militaries in Europe 



> Most of the EU would fall within hours of actual combat starting there.
> 
> The US has a substantial foothold in Germany already.


There are like 2,000 US soldiers in Germany. Germany has an army of over 683,150 so your foot hold is stomped instantly



> Your kidding yourself if you think the forces in the Middle East are going to be vulnerable to against EU. The US has total air superiority over Iraq and Afghanistan naval superiority over most of the region, and superiority on the ground. If that wheren't enough. The US Army had been preparing for second full scale conflict in Iraq since the first Gulf War and that part went off without a hitch.


 Your not the only people in the region you know.



> To dislodge the US from the Middle East would take too many resources for the EU to gain a substantial to gain a foot hold, and thats even if they somehow managed to ally themselves with the insurgency who can't even put up a fight without relying on acts of terrorism and guerrilla tactics.
> 
> If that wheren't bad enough, the US can bring war against the EU on day 1 because we have bases all over Europe. EU cannot do the same thing to us though because there are no foreign bases on US soil. The EU would have to come to the US first to do much of anything, which will be hard to do when ICBMs are reigning down on them as soon as the fight starts.


 Who are out numbered like 1000 to 1


----------



## RAGING BONER (Mar 29, 2008)

oh and numbers are a non-issue in this war...the US ranks would absolutely swell if a war like this ever broke out. Survival ignites the patriotic spirit much more than wars for oil.


----------



## Aokiji (Mar 29, 2008)

~RAGING BONER~ said:


> oh and numbers are a non-issue in this war...the US ranks would absolutely swell if a war like this ever broke out. Survival ignites the patriotic spirit much more than wars for oil.





~RAGING BONER~ said:


> believe it or not that would pretty much guarantee a level of nationalistic fanatiscism the likes of which a European mind can scarcely comprehend. Post 9-11 America would look like a radical left wing country compared to an America which has its 2 capitals destroyed.
> 
> forget about fighting until EU surrenders...fighting until EU no longer exists as a land mass would be more likely. The bible belt has so much potential for crazy...you don't even know.



That's nice, but nationalist fanaticism doesn't win wars. Also, I think the hatred for America dwarfs your nationalism.



Blue said:


> (sigh) Whatever. Look, you've got great food (except for the British), vibrant culture (I loved my trips to Europe) and you're smart and pretty and all that.
> 
> But the EU cannot beat the US in a military confrontation. Nobody can. If California seceded from the US, declared war on the EU, and the rest of the US stayed neutral, it would be a long bloody fight. The fucking Texas National Guard would one-on-one any one European country. This thread is silly.



Weren't you the one that argued for America in the USA vs the world thread?


----------



## Crimson Dragoon (Mar 29, 2008)

Aokiji said:


> Weren't you the one that argued for America in the USA vs the world thread?



To be fair, some of the posters in that thread were using that whole debacle in Iraq as a basis for why the US has shit military.  Those guys were no better than Blue in that regard, if not worse.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 29, 2008)

Anyone who ignores the current tech disparity does so at their own peril. The EU CANNOT make up for the massive difference in airpower. It takes money and most importantly, TIME, to build those supercarriers. We're talking years at full-scale production, here. The EU is not going to have the time, nor money, especially in a full-scale war economy, to actually pump out those kinds of numbers. Also, the EU IS still behind in actual tech. Sure, they have comparable planes. Sure, they have comparable tanks. Comparable GPS, comm systems, infantry weaponry, all that. What they lack are NUMBERS of that tech. The US dwarfs the EU in comparable planes, tanks, ships, and subs. Will the US take losses? Yes. Will it matter? Not in the least. You can have the bases in Europe. It still wouldn't matter.

Sure, you can say "Our Eurofighter is better than your F-22!" It wouldn't matter. Comparably speaking, you have 100 superior planes while we have 1000 slightly inferior ones with missiles just as good as yours. We could lose 3-1 for each plane and still come out ahead.

Besides, given the current numbers disparity, all the US has to really do is hold the EU off with it's conventional armies, retool the ICBMs to conventional warheads (takes at most a couple months to a year), and let fly. Europe literally has no comparable response to a massive ICBM strike.


----------



## Aokiji (Mar 29, 2008)

Darklyre said:


> Anyone who ignores the current tech disparity does so at their own peril. The EU CANNOT make up for the massive difference in airpower. It takes money and most importantly, TIME, to build those supercarriers. We're talking years at full-scale production, here. The EU is not going to have the time, nor money, especially in a full-scale war economy, to actually pump out those kinds of numbers. Also, the EU IS still behind in actual tech. Sure, they have comparable planes. Sure, they have comparable tanks. Comparable GPS, comm systems, infantry weaponry, all that. What they lack are NUMBERS of that tech. The US dwarfs the EU in comparable planes, tanks, ships, and subs. Will the US take losses? Yes. Will it matter? Not in the least. You can have the bases in Europe. It still wouldn't matter.
> 
> Sure, you can say "Our Eurofighter is better than your F-22!" It wouldn't matter. Comparably speaking, you have 100 superior planes while we have 1000 slightly inferior ones with missiles just as good as yours. We could lose 3-1 for each plane and still come out ahead.
> 
> Besides, given the current numbers disparity, all the US has to really do is hold the EU off with it's conventional armies, retool the ICBMs to conventional warheads (takes at most a couple months to a year), and let fly. Europe literally has no comparable response to a massive ICBM strike.



Isn't Russia included?


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

Darklyre said:


> Anyone who ignores the current tech disparity does so at their own peril. The EU CANNOT make up for the massive difference in airpower. It takes money and most importantly, TIME, to build those supercarriers. We're talking years at full-scale production, here. The EU is not going to have the time, nor money, especially in a full-scale war economy, to actually pump out those kinds of numbers. Also, the EU IS still behind in actual tech. Sure, they have comparable planes. Sure, they have comparable tanks. Comparable GPS, comm systems, infantry weaponry, all that. What they lack are NUMBERS of that tech. The US dwarfs the EU in comparable planes, tanks, ships, and subs. Will the US take losses? Yes. Will it matter? Not in the least. You can have the bases in Europe. It still wouldn't matter.
> 
> Sure, you can say "Our Eurofighter is better than your F-22!" It wouldn't matter. Comparably speaking, you have 100 superior planes while we have 1000 slightly inferior ones with missiles just as good as yours. We could lose 3-1 for each plane and still come out ahead.
> 
> Besides, given the current numbers disparity, all the US has to really do is hold the EU off with it's conventional armies, retool the ICBMs to conventional warheads (takes at most a couple months to a year), and let fly. Europe literally has no comparable response to a massive ICBM strike.



Finally some one who know what there talking about

Darklyre do you have any numbers for the air forces in Europe I know the US has around 7,500 aircraft but I have no idea what the combined number is for the EU


----------



## RAGING BONER (Mar 29, 2008)

Aokiji said:


> That's nice, but nationalist fanaticism doesn't win wars. Also, I think the hatred for America dwarfs your nationalism.



i does when the law makers adopt scorched earth policies in order to placate the masses who are frothing at the mouth for the blood of Europeans.

by the time the EU consolidates its forces under a single banner half the military industrial complex of the EU would have been wiped off the map. Without the factories and assembly lines to produce the weapons needed to win the long term war this fight goes to the americans.

and lol at hatred of the US...what else is new? US has never cared before, it will care even less in a situation like this.


Seriously, Texas and Cali alone have the military power to lay waste to most of Europe...without nukes.

if this is a nuclear war then its over for everyone. America has enough nukes to destroy the earth 18x's over...


----------



## Gig (Mar 29, 2008)

~RAGING BONER~ said:


> i does when the law makers adopt scorched earth policies in order to placate the masses who are frothing at the mouth for the blood of Europeans.
> 
> by the time the EU consolidates its forces under a single banner half the military industrial complex of the EU would have been wiped off the map. Without the factories and assembly lines to produce the weapons needed to win the long term war this fight goes to the americans.
> 
> ...




And you say that as if the singular nations of Europe will not defend them self from attack until a leader is selected


----------



## Tokito (Mar 29, 2008)

This is just..... Makes me wonder what the hell they are teaching in the USA about Europe. 
Besides seems like the propaganda from us-military is doing a good job in deceiving people^^



Blue said:


> We're talking military tech here, where the US is about 30 years ahead.



Baseless claim ftw, this just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. I doubt that you could name 2 military-products which are (far) superior than the eu counterpart.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 29, 2008)

Tokito said:


> This is just..... Makes me wonder what the hell they are teaching in the USA about Europe.
> Besides seems like the propaganda from us-military is doing a good job in deceiving people^^
> 
> 
> ...



ICBMs. Aircraft carriers. Done. 

Russia is not part of the EU. You can try and include it as a supplier, but that's a bad assumption to make since they could just as easily choose to supply the US.

Also, for aircraft numbers:





Britain has quite possibly the best air force in the EU as of this moment. France's air force is limited to the Mirage as a fighter plane, which you could say is comparable to the F-16...except France is limited by having only 1 aircraft carrier. Hell, the entire EU is limited to something like 6 carriers total, and none of them are of comparable tonnage nor deck space to the US supercarriers. 



If you look close, Britain has two carriers, both of which can carry maybe 22-25 aircraft. The USS Enterprise alone carries 90. Sure, the EU can bring in support ships which can possibly carry 5-10 more aircraft each, but the US can do the same thing, only with a ton MORE support ships. You bring in all 11 carrier groups and you're literally talking about 1000+ US planes vs. the EU, and that's JUST including carrier-supported aircraft. For comparison, the entire French air force has only 560 or so aircraft, and that's including cargo planes, training craft, and recon planes. We haven't even started talking about the ground-based fleets of the USAF, which include intercontinental bombers. AFAIK, the EU doesn't even HAVE any intercontinental bombers, aside from some possible Tupolev leftovers in Eastern Europe, while the US has over 150 of them.


----------



## Zetta (Mar 29, 2008)

Blue said:


> We're talking military tech here, where the US is about 30 years ahead. And we're also ignoring the fact that the EU is many distinct, competing nationalities and ethnic groups and the US is one whole.



Excuse me...

Are we living on the same planet? Is this some kind of Bizarro US? 

A country that exists SOLEY out of immigrants are a whole? A country with the biggest deficit in the history of mankind is gonna outspend an economical juggernaut? A union whose coins is nearly worth double yours?

Also,US has most of it's troops stationed in the Middle-East and a fuckload of arms in Europe. The second war gets declared,guess whose seizing the Europian  US basis?

Now watch as the US troops who are fucking around in the ME get owned by a Euro-Arab coalition. How's this for a coalition of the willing? They'll get bombed by their own arms. Whatever survives,will fall into the hands of the coalition. This coalition will have the biggest oil supply in the world at its back while leaving none for the American War Machine.

Russia will of course jump on the bandwagon and the Asian countries will clearly see who will win this,hence joining too. This coalition,armed with bombs that outmatch ANY US bombardment (Father of All Bombs anyone?) will launch air raid,crippling the US economy even further.

The mighty USAF,as formidable as they are, can't beat the combined world airforce.

You see,in realistic war, the US would bite the dust simply because they're hated. They've made too many enemies. If the EU would join them,the US are pretty much screwed.

It would be EU-ME-Russia Vs US and fucking Isreal. Guess who loses?


If it was US and EU duking it out without interference,then US would still lose because their troops are spred thin all over the world. A full scale air,naval and ground assualt from all the countries in the EU would be able to beat the US since the US mainland is not fortified against invasion. 

You're also forgetting that most of the US's special OPs pale in comparisson to their Europian counterparts. The Navy SEALS can't handle the SAS. Hell,who do you think trains the SEALS? Their snipers are rookies compared to Belgium's Ghost Snipers (renowned as the world's top snipers). 

The FBI,CIA,Secret Service? They'll fuck around amongst themselves while EUROPOL outsources them easily. Or how about the Eastern Europian remnants of the USSR's agencies. Do you think they've been destroyed? Ha!

Hell,you do realise that all the big criminal organisations in the US are infact Europian? They'd conduct guerilla attacks on your shit. Bloodlusted Europe takes this.


----------



## Jeltz (Mar 29, 2008)

Darklyre said:


> Sure, you can say "Our Eurofighter is better than your F-22!" It wouldn't matter. Comparably speaking, you have 100 superior planes while we have 1000 slightly inferior ones with missiles just as good as yours. We could lose 3-1 for each plane and still come out ahead.



You just have 100 F-22 compared to our 100 Eurofighters. These aren't the planes that will matter: it is the bulk that will. The bulk consisting of older planes. Who wins there I have no idea since I'm no military geek. But I think it will come down to F-15 and f-16 for the USA and a mix of various old planes (MIG, F-15, F-16, JAS, Tornado, Mirage, and others) for the EU.


----------



## Hexa (Mar 29, 2008)

Depends on what "winning" means.  If America just wants to firebomb every city it finds, then maybe that would work.  Otherwise, no.

EU doesn't have much of a navy and can't make much of a strike.


----------



## HumanWine (Mar 29, 2008)

There's no way the USA would win. Yeah we possibly have a higher amount of advance tech than the majority of the world but we dont have the man power or the money to fight. We we dont adopt biological warfare, we die hard without a vengeance.


----------



## Steven Pinhead (Mar 29, 2008)

The US isn't just being cocky when we say we've got the best conventional military in the world. Our Air and Naval forces are second to none.

That and we could just have our special forces knock out the country leaders swiftly.

However, that would require the USA to be OOC.


----------



## Arishem (Mar 29, 2008)

Question: why do people continually bring up other countries up outside of the US and those within the EU? Asides from Russia as an option in scenario 2, the others have nothing to do with this thread. The OP explicitly said that this is just the US vs the EU. Neither side is going to be getting aid from anyone. Taking that into consideration, the US wins with a scorched earth policy. The EU lacks the Navy to make anykind of significant strike.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 30, 2008)

Zetta said:


> Excuse me...
> 
> Are we living on the same planet? Is this some kind of Bizarro US?
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeltz (Mar 30, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> Zetta said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason the EU is can even be called an "Economic Juggernaught" is because they combined the economies of several nations that have been around for hundreds of years longer. The only reason why its as high as it is is because of the British anyways who got their money threw practicing imperialism.



The reason Europe could engage in imperialism was due to our good economies, not the other way round. And Britain is far from the only important economy of Europe. Germany has a larger economy and France and Italy almost as large.



> Oh yes, I totally see them walking in and taking over the US basses in a few minutes. Nevermind the armored Battalions of A2 Abrams that would rape anyone trying to come at those basses from the ground.



Nevermind the fact that all of those Abrams currently are at the western side of the atlantic or in Iraq. The largest thing you have in europe is the .




EDIT: Can people on both sides please look up the facts before either pulling htem from your memories or asses. So much incorrect information in this thread.


----------



## Sengoku (Mar 30, 2008)

The US wins. Europe's military doesnt really impress me :\


----------



## Radical Dreamer (Mar 30, 2008)

It's my understanding that SOME members of the EU are JUST starting to experiment with stealth and laser-based weaponry and defenses. The US is working third and fourth-generation weapon systems in those areas. 

Yeah, thirty years ahead sounds about right. Not to mention our superior ability to intercept ICBMs as opposed to Europe. Why do you think the US is the one installing a radar and missile screen inside Europe and not the EU? Because they don't have the technology.

I make an edit to this: The EU currently has zero stealth-capable aircraft in their entire air force, according to the sources I'm looking at. B-2 Spirits rape all of Europe and rape them handily.


----------



## Zetta (Mar 30, 2008)

Screw it,this thread is pure flamebait.


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

EU loses. It USA calls a draft, we bomb them with everything non nuclear and clean up the mess afterwards. Britian and maybe Germany are the only militaries we have the take seriously in a conventional fight, other wise gg europe. I'm won't argue a nuclear war sceniro cause everyone loses. Conventional warfare isn't about who has the biggest weapons, what is the readiness level of the EU? Average experience of generals in actual combat situations? Can the EU socialist economy really hold out against a capitalist one in a war that might last 3-10 years? If you look at Afghanistan the only nations that are actually willing to engage in combat are Britian, Canada, USA. Thats it. Germany may have something up their sleeves when a real fight breaks out and their ass is on the line, but thats about it. Western Europe is incredibly weak right now. The USA spends more on it's military, would easily outproduce the EU if a draft is called, and has more experience and is more ready for actual warfare then 90% of the EU.


----------



## Get F*cked Stud (Mar 30, 2008)

Zetta said:


> Screw it,this thread is pure flamebait.



Well and truly destined.


----------



## Saiko (Mar 30, 2008)

Poland takes it alone.


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Tokito said:


> This is just..... Makes me wonder what the hell they are teaching in the USA about Europe.
> Besides seems like the propaganda from us-military is doing a good job in deceiving people^^
> 
> 
> ...



Actually our education system is controlled by pussy ass liberals who figure that the US military and corporate America is the root of all evil. Shows what leftist Europe knows about the US huh? Considering that most people don't know what their talking about when these type of debates come around, doesn't mean the losing side isn't the losing side. Everyone knows that the last thing Europe needs is a seriously arm conflict, considering that Europe is facing declining birthrate, larger gap between the number of retiree's and to workers in countries like Denmark, and stalling economy especially France.


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Mar 30, 2008)

LoL Russia solos


----------



## Saiko (Mar 30, 2008)

You all people make yourself ridicioulous if you argue about who would win EU or USA

You all people dont know a shit about everything and you discuss who would win..     


Who knows maybe Europe has a Secret Weapon in Germany .. a 50 ton Big Ass Robot who destroys mankind and USA has in a Texas Flying Fortress with Nukes..

D:


----------



## HumanWine (Mar 30, 2008)

This is the kind of shit that will get us bombed. I hope you people never lead this country because I'll be forced to moved to Canada.


----------



## Estrecca (Mar 30, 2008)

Wuzzman said:


> Actually our education system is controlled by pussy ass liberals who figure that the US military and corporate America is the root of all evil.



If I didn't know that there are quite a few educative centers in the United States that have the gall to claim that Creationism is a scientific theory, I might be willing to believe that your claims have some merit.

At any rate, both the United States and the European Union go bankrupt in a matter of days when trade between the two largest economic powers in the world stops as a result of the conflict and they drag the rest of the world in their fall. No one these days is in any condition to withstand the social and economical impact of a disaster like this, regardless of "bloodlust". 

In other news, the United States can wipe out many of the largest population centers of Europe with nuclear weaponry and let nuclear winter and fallout do the rest for them, so they win for as long as it takes for the "On The Beach" scenario to complete its course.


----------



## Ryuk (Mar 30, 2008)

USA never loses


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 30, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> The only reason the EU is can even be called an "Economic Juggernaught" is because they combined the economies of several nations that have been around for hundreds of years longer. The only reason why its as high as it is is because of the British anyways who got their money threw practicing imperialism.



Yeah, just going to give a quick comment on this...
Do you have any idea who the major economic centers of EU are?
True, the British people are a part of that, but so are the Swedish, German and French, just to mention a few.
Also, since this is Britain, do we include the Commonwealth in this as well, anyway?


----------



## Vault (Mar 30, 2008)

wiesmann said:


> LoL Russia solos



/thread


----------



## Enclave (Mar 30, 2008)

Conventional War: EU wins.  Look at the troubles with Iraq, that would be nothing compared to what they would be faced with in the entire EU.  It's just a war the States cannot win.

Nuclear War: Mutual Annihilation.


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Estrecca said:


> If I didn't know that there are quite a few educative centers in the United States that have the gall to claim that Creationism is a scientific theory, I might be willing to believe that your claimshave some merit.



thats a minority. A couple dozen creationism institutions vs a couple thousand liberal theology institutions. The United States can live without the european union, it won't be comfortable though.


----------



## HumanWine (Mar 30, 2008)

WWIII 2013, China & the World vs the US; be ready.


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Enclave said:


> Conventional War: EU wins.  Look at the troubles with Iraq, that would be nothing compared to what they would be faced with in the entire EU.  It's just a war the States cannot win.
> 
> Nuclear War: Mutual Annihilation.



look at Afghanistan and tell me the EU would still win.


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 30, 2008)

Wuzzman said:


> look at Afghanistan and tell you the EU would still win.



Iraq had a better economy than Afghanistan.
EU has a way better economy than both USA and Afghanistan, which can be put to military means...


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Iraq had a better economy than Afghanistan.
> EU has a way better economy than both USA and Afghanistan, which can be put to military means...



LOL. Then why is only Britian the ONLY european country willing to send their troops in combat zones? why is 99% of EU sitting in the Afghanistan equivalent of the green zone(oh yeah they refuse to send their troops to the troubled areas even better they refuse to send more troops). Why is the Taliban gained enough power to harrass both Afghanistan AND Pakistan while threatening to take back control of Afghanistan.


----------



## Gary (Mar 30, 2008)

every person in the world would die from 2 and i know  mod will close this thrad soon


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 30, 2008)

Wuzzman said:


> LOL. Then why is only Britian the ONLY european country willing to send their troops in combat zones? why is 99% of EU sitting in the Afghanistan equivalent of the green zone. Why is the Taliban gained enough power to harrass both Afghanistan AND Pakistan while threatening to take back control of Afghanistan.



Maybe because we aren't all that fond of USA either?
Maybe we don't like that your country have taken members of European nations hostage, because of some ill-defined "threat" they pose?
Face it, what Bush is doing is causing everyone to hate you, and you got lucky that even so many European nations bothered to send out the soldiers they did.
Britain, however, has a long tradition of wanting to be friends with USA above most other European countries.

Seriously, that war is yours, you president started it.
Why would we spend European lives on that, anyway?
Now, if you want to send people that could work and actually help out your economy while simultaneously going into a guerrilla war, fine by us.

But seriously, why should we spend resources on that, when this is the idea of the American government?
Clear up your own mess...

And as for the taliban stuff, how about the fact that they are part of the population, while the invaders are not?
Seriously, do you have any idea how impossible it is to beat someone that has the local population on their side, without committing genocide?

Simply enough, what is happening now is that USA is screwing itself over economically.
Not going to end well for that nation, unless something is done.


----------



## Enclave (Mar 30, 2008)

Wuzzman said:


> look at Afghanistan and tell me the EU would still win.



Since when was the entire EU in Afgan?


----------



## ?_Camorra_? (Mar 30, 2008)

LoL Why is this thread still going on?


----------



## Estrecca (Mar 30, 2008)

wiesmann said:


> LoL Why is this thread still going on?



Amusement value, perhaps?


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 30, 2008)

Estrecca said:


> Amusement value, perhaps?



I vote its because of boredom...


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Ax_ said:
> 
> 
> > some shit about iraqi which wuzzman wasn't even talking about
> ...



that pretty much sums it


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 30, 2008)

Wuzzman said:


> that pretty much sums it



So, this is what you turn to now that you can't think of something else?
I mean, you were the one who brought up Afghanistan, so I brought up Iraq to compare the two.
After all, if USA has problems taking down Iraq as it is right now, what chance does it have to finish the fight quickly against EU?
Now, for the other part of your oh so very intelligent comeback.
USa is, more or less, hated by everyone.
Now, tell me why EU should want to help USA with their own little war, since you seem to think its so damn funny that EU aren't taking a more active role there?


----------



## Sylar (Mar 30, 2008)

Just out of curiousity why are people trying to use Afganistan and Iraq (which was not a conventional war in the least) to the EU?  Literally the US could just bomb the EU into glass and not have a single soldier set foot on EU ground.


----------



## Ax_ (Mar 30, 2008)

Sylar said:


> Just out of curiousity why are people trying to use Afganistan and Iraq (which was not a conventional war in the least) to the EU?  Literally the US could just bomb the EU into glass and not have a single soldier set foot on EU ground.



Other people brought up Afghanistan, so I brought up Iraq to counter their point.
Then...it kind of went downhill from there, I'd say...
Still, with the current economy as screwed up as it is in USA, it won't be easy for them to win.


----------



## Sylar (Mar 30, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> Other people brought up Afghanistan, so I brought up Iraq to counter their point.
> Then...it kind of went downhill from there, I'd say...
> Still, with the current economy as screwed up as it is in USA, it won't be easy for them to win.



But we're not looking at a 5 year long occupation. We're looking at the EU getting bombed so bad that roaches may be the only living things left after the US is done.  The US isn't trying to save the EU from a dictator or look for a terrorist. They want to kill the enemy and they will.


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Ax_ said:


> I'm sorry wuzzman I didn't know that UN approved the invasion of Afghanistan and the ousting of the Taliban, that Osama Bin Ladin a world wanted terriost was being sheltered there and capturing him dead or alive was an objective both the US and the UN (including the EU) agree with. I'm sorry that I seemed to have forgotten 8 years worth of world history for the sake of flaming the bush administration(not that they don't deserve it).  And I'm also very sorry for not knowing that Iraqi != Afghanistan.



pretty much sums his post up


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Sylar said:


> Just out of curiousity why are people trying to use Afganistan and Iraq (which was not a conventional war in the least) to the EU?  Literally the US could just bomb the EU into glass and not have a single soldier set foot on EU ground.



I only brought up Afghanistan when people started to use Iraqi for a reason why the US couldn't glass the EU.


----------



## Sengoku (Mar 30, 2008)

Enclave said:


> Conventional War: EU wins.  Look at the troubles with Iraq, that would be nothing compared to what they would be faced with in the entire EU.  It's just a war the States cannot win.
> 
> Nuclear War: Mutual Annihilation.



You realize that that the US can lock down Iraq within matter of months or hell, weeks if they wanted to?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 30, 2008)

If it's a battle to destroy not capture-and-occupy I don't see the point of bringing up Iraq.

Even non-nuclear if the US had wanted to destroy Iraq the "war" would have lasted a matter of minutes.

If it's supposed to be a battle to capture-and-occupy likely it's a stalemate, or it would take forever to finish (at least the non-nuclear scenario).


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Mar 30, 2008)

Naval, air and ground power all play important roles in war. However, it is he who can sustain war will determine the victor. Logistics plays a key role in war that many overlook.

The EU verses the US, the Europeans take a major blow in this facet of war. Comparing the US to the EU, one could actually fit the entire European Union inside the United States and still have room for more. The EU suffers from a great shortage of land mass the the US has in abundance. In terms of mass production, it would take less than a week for the Ford Motor company assembly lines to retool their factories to start spitting out war vehicles and armor. Aircraft manufacturers will cut ties with European contracts and begin spitting out Raptors, JSFs and F/A-18s at triple their current rate. The bone yards would begin re-commissioning naval warships and attack planes within weeks before their demand would be needed.

A war of such magnitude would cause the US economy, in a similar fashion to WWII and the depression, to sky rocket.


----------



## Gig (Mar 30, 2008)

Sesshoumaru said:


> Naval, air and ground power all play important roles in war. However, it is he who can sustain war will determine the victor. Logistics plays a key role in war that many overlook.
> 
> The EU verses the US, the Europeans take a major blow in this facet of war. Comparing the US to the EU, one could actually fit the entire European Union inside the United States and still have room for more. The EU suffers from a great shortage of land mass the the US has in abundance. In terms of mass production, it would take less than a week for the Ford Motor company assembly lines to retool their factories to start spitting out war vehicles and armor. Aircraft manufacturers will cut ties with European contracts and begin spitting out Raptors, JSFs and F/A-18s at triple their current rate. The bone yards would begin re-commissioning naval warships and attack planes within weeks before their demand would be needed.
> 
> A war of such magnitude would cause the US economy, in a similar fashion to WWII and the depression, to sky rocket.



And the entire united states can fit in Russia and Canada  and allot of there land is frozen wastes just because you have more land doe's not mean it's better land. 

As for the ford motor company doing that any car company located in Europe can do the same with the same results. Every thing you have just said can be done by Europe just as easily.


----------



## Zetta (Mar 30, 2008)

Wuzzman said:


> pretty much sums his post up



Your fail is epic.

All you do is put words in other people's mouth because you can't cover your own arguments.

Either debate nicely and fairly or GTFO.


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 30, 2008)

Lets not forget that we still have Alaskan Oil resevers that untapped. The prospectors have said for years that Alaska produce as much oil as the entire Middle East for as long as 50 years if we tapped into all of it. It would take a year of hard labor to get that up and running. In fact there are only 2 reasons the US hasn't attempted to open it up already. The most obvious reason is the environmentalist protestors, but there is another reason. If the Middle Runs out of oil in a few years, we can open up the Alaskan oil fields and instantly become the top oil producing country in the world, and all the money we've waisted on Middle Eastern Oil will come back to us when they have to turn to us for their oil producing needs.


----------



## Dave (Mar 30, 2008)

It doesn't really matter who would win, life would be shit for everyone during and afterwards.


----------



## Sengoku (Mar 30, 2008)

f22 would kill any EU jets: Typhoon, overrated su-37 and 47, etc...

Not to mention.. Arleighburke's Aegis system! *orgasm* 

Oh and *Darklyre*. Not sure if you know this already but check this:
Link removed


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 30, 2008)

Zetta said:


> I have no actual arguments so I will put the words epic and fail in the same sentence to prove a nonexistent point.


 that sounds about right. 


The US economy is much more true to capitalism then the EU, for that matter the shifting of US economy from peace time to war time production will happen more efficiently in the US since we do not have huge government taxes cutting into everything productive. From what I understand about socialist economies, I'm sure they don't do so well in a major war.


----------



## Arishem (Mar 30, 2008)

Gig said:


> And the entire united states can fit in Russia and Canada  and allot of there land is frozen wastes just because you have more land doe's not mean it's better land.
> 
> As for the ford motor company doing that any car company located in Europe can do the same with the same results. Every thing you have just said can be done by Europe just as easily.



While that may be true, America still has a colossal advantage, and it will only grow larger as time goes on. The US navy is far larger than all of the EU's fleets combined; hell, it's larger than all of the world's navies combined. Our airforce also dwarfs the combined airforces of the EU, and we have stealth aircraft which nobody else has. We also have almost a 1000 jets that can be launched from our aircraft carriers. The combined aircraft carriers of France, the UK, Italy, and Spain can't even manage a fifth of that. Our cruiser, submarine, and frigate fleets would sink them in no time. We also have a shit load of support and supply vessels to transport our massive army, but I doubt it'd come to that. 

Finally, America's ICBM capabilities totally outmatch anything the EU could muster, and we could retool them for conventional paylods in about a year or less. We also have the most cutting-edge countermeasures to ICBM strikes, another thing the EU doesn't have. Add them to conventional bombing and you have one helluva fireworks display on your hands. We could literally bomb the EU back to a level where they'd be setback for centuries.


----------



## Estrecca (Mar 30, 2008)

To suggest that the USAF can level Europe with conventional weaponry is a rather serious claim, considering that the combined airforces of the European Union can more than match the number of aircraft that the USN can deploy/support, the intrinsic vulnerability of long supply chains (and for a campaign that would have to be fought from aircraft carriers those would be seriously long and vulnerable supply chains) and the sheer scope of the undertaking (the territory of the European Union is roughly equivalent to 2/3rds of CONUS, which is an awful lot of ground to level even with the most optimistic scenarios).


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Mar 30, 2008)

What are the victory conditions? Did this go six pages without that being specified?


----------



## Arishem (Mar 30, 2008)

Spy_Smasher said:


> What are the victory conditions? Did this go six pages without that being specified?



That's basically what has been going on.


----------



## Soul Vibe (Mar 30, 2008)

Estrecca said:


> To suggest that the USAF can level Europe with conventional weaponry is a rather serious claim, considering that the combined airforces of the European Union can more than match the number of aircraft that the USN can deploy/support, the intrinsic vulnerability of long supply chains (and for a campaign that would have to be fought from aircraft carriers those would be seriously long and vulnerable supply chains) and the sheer scope of the undertaking (the territory of the European Union is roughly equivalent to 2/3rds of CONUS, which is an awful lot of ground to level even with the most optimistic scenarios).



Aircraft number hardly matters in a conventional war between the USAF and the EU's Air Force.  A single F-22 was pitted in a simulation against roughly 150 F-15's, and the F-22 managed to kill 133 of the F-15's before they ended the simulation.

USAF stomps any modern Air Force hard.


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Mar 30, 2008)

Arishem said:


> That's basically what has been going on.


Isn't that the OP's responsibility?


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 30, 2008)

Estrecca said:


> To suggest that the USAF can level Europe with conventional weaponry is a rather serious claim, considering that the combined airforces of the European Union can more than match the number of aircraft that the USN can deploy/support, the intrinsic vulnerability of long supply chains (and for a campaign that would have to be fought from aircraft carriers those would be seriously long and vulnerable supply chains) and the sheer scope of the undertaking (the territory of the European Union is roughly equivalent to 2/3rds of CONUS, which is an awful lot of ground to level even with the most optimistic scenarios).



It doesn't NEED to level it with conventional weapons, only hold off the EU's navy and any stray bombers until the US can retool the ICBMs to conventional warheads. Once those ICBMs launch it's essentially chocolate rain time. All of Europe's population centers are easily targetable from the US, whereas the EU lacks the navy to ship its air force to striking distance of the North American continent, and also lacks the missiles to launch that kind of strike. Say the US has 1,000 nuclear missiles. Some of those will be MIRV warheads, meaning you've essentially got 1,500 missiles. If only half of them get through, that's still 750 warheads that can take out government institutions, hospitals, army bases, airfields, construction yards, etc. None of those are particularly hardened targets as it is. After all, it only takes one bomber with cluster bombs to ruin an entire airfield.



Sengoku said:


> Oh and *Darklyre*. Not sure if you know this already but check this:
> Naruto Uzumaki



I did indeed notice.


----------



## Wuzzman (Mar 31, 2008)

Espada said:


> Aircraft number hardly matters in a conventional war between the USAF and the EU's Air Force.  A single F-22 was pitted in a simulation against roughly 150 F-15's, and the F-22 managed to kill 133 of the F-15's before they ended the simulation.
> 
> USAF stomps any modern Air Force hard.



133/150 airplanes at the same time(does the F-22 even have enough guns/missiles to take out that many planes in one go....)? Thats a serious and nigh impossible feat to claim never the less believe unless the simulator was programmed with shitty AI...


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 31, 2008)

Exactly, the OP didn't say. In the the OBD when the terms are not stated that you assume that both sides are blood lusted and that the fight continues until one side is either dead or otherwise unable to continue fighting. Congratulations OP. You just made a thread where in the entire population of Europe is whipped out in a massive genocide.

I hope your happy.


----------



## Banhammer (Mar 31, 2008)

How came my video explaining the actual size of the planet and landmasses of europe and america was deleted?


----------



## strongarm85 (Mar 31, 2008)

Beats me, mind sending me a link, I might be interested.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Mar 31, 2008)

You guys think US vs China would be more interesting (depending on the factors)?


----------



## Sylar (Mar 31, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> How came my video explaining the actual size of the planet and landmasses of europe and america was deleted?



EM apparently thought it was offtopic.


----------



## Estrecca (Mar 31, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> You guys think US vs China would be more interesting (depending on the factors)?



No. The British, French and German airforces alone are more than a numerical match for the Chinese Air Force, the Chinese economy is completely geared for the international trade and would collapse in the event of conflict and its GDP is somewhere between 1/3 and 2/3rds of Europe's. The only thing they have in bigger quantities is manpower.


----------



## HumanWine (Mar 31, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> You guys think US vs China would be more interesting (depending on the factors)?


Give it another 5-8 years and you'll see.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Mar 31, 2008)

Banhammer said:


> How came my video explaining the actual size of the planet and landmasses of europe and america was deleted?



Was a blank post, not a video.


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Mar 31, 2008)

This Sesshoumaru had already stated the size comparison between the US and EU, ningen. 

The EU has a navy? Do not amuse this one with such worthless trivia. What you could constitute as a navy for the European Union would equate to a fraction of what consist of the US Navy. The US Navy is the largest in the world with a tonnage greater than the next 17 largest combined. 11 carrier fleets with two more under construction along with amphibious carriers which can act as smaller scout or attack fleets. The only nation in the European Union who dispatches a respectable carrier is the French, and that in itself is laughable.

Because it's the French.


----------



## Rice Ball (Mar 31, 2008)

EU with relative ease.
EU military training is much better than the USA, The British, French and German Air Forces are very much superior (Both technology wise and pilot quality). The USAF has had its ass handed to it so much in training exercises it isn't funny anymore.

It depends whos on the offensive really.

British Anti Air would be a great advantage if they tried attacking by air, the only damage recieved would be falling 180 million dollar F22 parts.

I guess a failed attempt to land on either would lead to a war of attrition that the EU would win (having more resources combined).


----------



## Blue (Mar 31, 2008)

Not you too Riceball. 

The US National Guard would win a war with the EU, the regular military won't even have to move.

And I swear to god and king and country I know what I'm talking about and I'm not being a tard. Study military doctrine plzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

EDIT: Actually I take that back, the Navy would have to participate. But the USAF and the Army wouldn't.


----------



## Rice Ball (Mar 31, 2008)

To that i would say update your information.
The first thing to go would be all sats orbiting the earth (Noo! my Sky TV!!).  Claiming the national guard could pull it off is ludicus.


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Mar 31, 2008)

Blue has suddenly made one of the most important points in this thread, albeit indirectly.

How will the EU fight a technological war without satellites? The US has basically control of all satellites in orbit around the Earth with many of those satellites subcontracted to the EU for cellphone and data information usage. One the war begins, the EU will be in the dark, cut off from the rest of the world.

Also considered unmanned aerial vehicles such as the Predator. The EU has now shown any sort of dedication to UAVs and armed UAVs, which would be piloted by Air National Guardsman and Air Force reservist half-way across the globe.


----------



## Blue (Mar 31, 2008)

Mad Titan said:


> To that i would say update your information.
> The first thing to go would be all sats orbiting the earth (Noo! my Sky TV!!).  Claiming the national guard could pull it off is ludicus.


This is a good point, but it serves to further illustrate the differences in their militarizes. 

Both the US and the EU depend on satellites to navigate.

The punchline? The EU uses US sats. 

And the US can orbit more. A shitload more, within a matter of weeks, with 3 spaceports and almost a dozen pads, as well as a strategic reserve of Delta rockets and satellites. 
The EU can't, especially after their spaceports (which aren't even in Europe if I recall correctly) get nailed.

Also, no, it's not ludacris. It's correct. Unlike a war against the US military proper, which would be a nasty stomp with US material losses probably below 30%, it would be a long, nasty war. But the US national guard outnumbers the EU with comparable equipment. So they'd win.

EDIT: Shit, now I'm spelling ludicrous like the fucking rapper. Internet, what have you done to meeeeeeeeee


----------



## Rice Ball (Mar 31, 2008)

You realise that works both ways?
BOTH sides will lose there sat coms, both sides have the technologies to KEEP knocking each others sat coms down.

You realise the national guard has 500,000 active people (thats including the support staff). The german Bundeswehr have 18million registered people to call up and 275,000 ACTIVE people. The French army has 350,000 ACTIVE people too.
Thats only 2 countrys in the EU.


----------



## Blue (Mar 31, 2008)

Mad Titan said:


> You realise that works both ways?
> BOTH sides will lose there sat coms, both sides have the technologies to KEEP knocking each others sat coms down.
> 
> You realise the national guard has 500,000 active people (thats including the support staff). The german Bundeswehr have 18million registered people to call up and 275,000 ACTIVE people. The French army has 350,000 ACTIVE people too.
> Thats only 2 countrys in the EU.



Outnumbers them in the ways that matter - material. The first and most glaring mistake people make about modern warfare is to think numbers matter much ultimately. The Iraqi army, both times it fought the US Army, had close to a million men, against the 250,000 coalition troops in the 1st war and the 150,000 troops in the second. Massive rapestomp both times.

What happened was the Iraqi Air Force lost control of the air quickly (or simply never had it the second time) and at that point the armies were at the mercy of the USAF, which fortunately for them targeted their attacks to cause terror and surrender rather than massive death.

The same thing would happen in Europe. The European air forces would quickly lose control of the skies. I suppose I should take a moment to explain this adequately.
First of all, very few American planes would ever come into range of the air defense networks. The first thing that would happen is Aircraft Carrier battle groups would set up shop around Europe. Nothing within 600 miles of a supercarrier battlegroup survives unless it has permission from the carrier to continue breathing. I can explain why this is if you'd like later. Basically this negates the European navies.

Then you'll have American cruisers and submarines off the coast, under carrier protection. The cruise missile rain begins. First the radar stations, then the missile batteries, then aircraft hangars and runways, then whatever else might be fun to hit with a cruise missile. After this process is over, European air defense will be reduced to almost nothing.

That's when you'll see the F-16s - Wild Weasels - especially equipped to deal with air defense fly in. You'll also see the first F-22s. As soon as any air defense radar that escaped the cruise missiles lights up, the Wild Weasels pelt it with missiles that home in on the radar signal. Many European fighters will survive the missiles, being in hardened or hidden hangars.
Unfortunately nothing in the world can compete with an F-22 in the air. No, not even the Eurofighter, which is a great aircraft but cannot match the F-22 in several important areas, notably thrust vectoring, over-the-horizon threat acquisition, and stealth capabilities. Anything that gets into the air gets an AMRAAM from a Raptor very very quickly, and nothing Europe has can really acquire targeting on a stealth fighter.
Here's a wiki quote.


> 14 F-22's of the 94th FS supported attacking Blue Force strike packages as well as engaging in close air support sorties themselves in Red Flag 07-1 between 3 February and 16 February 2007. Against designed superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, it established air dominance using eight aircraft during day missions and six at night, reportedly defeating the Aggressors quickly and efficiently, even though the exercise rules of engagement allowed for four to five Red Force regenerations of losses but none to Blue Force. Further, no sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures, and only one Raptor was adjudged lost against the virtual annihilation of the defending force.[54] When their ordnance was expended, the F-22s remained in the exercise area providing electronic surveillance to the Blue Forces.[55]


One Raptor. Against regenerating superior numbers of upgraded F-15s, which are about as good as anything Europe has. You can say "Well no, Europe has much better than that!" but unfortunately you'd be wrong.

Anyway. So at this point air superiority has been achieved. Swarms of American aircraft fly across Europe uncontested. Any one of them can put a 2000lb bomb through any window in Europe inside of an hour. Armies in the field are massacred if they don't surrender. The European Navy is destroyed, either in dock or by swarms of attacking carrier aircraft.

The US Army can get involved at this point, nothing stopping them from landing ships. Of course an invasion would be a bloody disgusting affair similar to WWII with millions of casualties on both sides, but the occupation would be successful eventually, because Europe could not field any organized armies with death raining from the skies. 

Now if you want to talk about partizan warfare AFTER the US has already occupied Europe, NOW you can bring up Iraq. ONLY after the war is already over does the problems America is having in Iraq right now become relevant at all.

And that's all I'm going to say about this with the exception of clarifying or expanding points, because either you believe all that or you don't. If you choose not to believe it, then I cannot say anything to convince you. It is the truth, nonetheless.


----------



## Darklyre (Mar 31, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> You guys think US vs China would be more interesting (depending on the factors)?



As of this moment, China cannot do anything to the US short of fighting off a US ground invasion. It lacks the naval power and sheer mobility to actually move it's army around, and it's tech systems are all a few decades behind the US. A US ground invasion would be sheer hell and would likely result in a stalemate: the US cannot actually penetrate anywhere important, but the Chinese lack the resources to disrupt the US supply lines and dislodge the landing spots.


----------



## Soul Vibe (Mar 31, 2008)

Blue said:


> Outnumbers them in the ways that matter - material. The first and most glaring mistake people make about modern warfare is to think numbers matter much ultimately. The Iraqi army, both times it fought the US Army, had close to a million men, against the 250,000 coalition troops in the 1st war and the 150,000 troops in the second. Massive rapestomp both times.
> 
> What happened was the Iraqi Air Force lost control of the air quickly (or simply never had it the second time) and at that point the armies were at the mercy of the USAF, which fortunately for them targeted their attacks to cause terror and surrender rather than massive death.
> 
> ...



//end thread


----------



## Spy_Smasher (Mar 31, 2008)

Mad Titan said:


> I guess a failed attempt to land on either would lead to a war of attrition that the EU would win (having more resources combined).


I haven't been participating in this thread but this has to be one of the most absurd things I've ever read in the OBD. The idea that the Europeans could put together an expeditionary force sufficient to attack another first-world military is beyond any sense of reality. The only reason I'd give the EU a puncher's chance in this scenario is that they're defending their own territory. The idea of them attacking across an ocean without American help is pure fantasy. _Maybe_ if they had 50 years of prep time.


----------



## Zetta (Mar 31, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> You want talk about countries that have made enemies? The British have Lots more enemies than we have. I mean hell, it was only a little over 10 years ago that they finally stopped fighting a civil war against the IRISH. The top countries in the European Union all got their money from practicing Imperialism. You mean to tell me there aren't any hard feelings over that?



Name one country who would matter in a realistic world war between the EU and US that has a grudge against an EU country. Seriously,try it. Asian/African/South American colonies are worth SHIT in this kind of conflict. Now compare this to who the US has pissed off. Oh,hello arab oil supply.


----------



## Sesshoumaru (Mar 31, 2008)

And after the Navy and Air Force gain naval and air superiority, in comes the Marines.

Our first target.... France. 

We'll make the German Blitzkreig look like a walk in the park.


----------



## Zetta (Mar 31, 2008)

Sesshoumaru said:


> And after the Navy and Air Force gain naval and air superiority, in comes the Marines.
> 
> Our first target.... France.
> 
> We'll make the German Blitzkreig look like a walk in the park.



No military feat to date can rival the Blitzkreig. Seriously,the feat was exceptional even by today's standards.


----------



## Blue (Mar 31, 2008)

Zetta said:


> No military feat to date can rival the Blitzkreig. Seriously,the feat was exceptional even by today's standards.



You know nothing of military history. The Blitzkreig was hampered by terrible logistics and awful planning, and only succeeded because of the element of surprise and the sheer ineptitude of the Polish and French armies. The famous factoid that the German army relied on horse-drawn carriages for its supply lines is not exaggerated at all.

You want to see war done right? Look at Iraq.

The WAR, not the insurgency.

Also I'm assuming the rest of the world stays neutral in this, although the end result would hardly vary.


----------



## Megaharrison (Mar 31, 2008)

EU gets curbstomped. Modern war is determined by the ability of a state to project its power. The overwhelmingly American superiority in naval and air power and carriers especially, results in a clear US victory. 

Everyone dies in Nuclear war. Huzzah.

I'd write more but it's already been said.


----------



## strongarm85 (Apr 1, 2008)

Zetta said:


> Name one country who would matter in a realistic world war between the EU and US that has a grudge against an EU country. Seriously,try it. Asian/African/South American colonies are worth SHIT in this kind of conflict. Now compare this to who the US has pissed off. Oh,hello arab oil supply.



Again, this is most uneducated statement you've made in your debate so far. Even more so than claiming that mafia was going to help the Europeon Union win the war.

The Saudi's (or at least the Saudi Royal Family) love us, so much so that they've allowed to us to build entire towns inside their country for the purpose of working their oil fields which are protected by the Saudi Arabian Military. We've made the Saudi Arabia a very rich nation and we have been their number 1 customers now for almost 60 years now.

This oil embargo you speak of where the Middle East cuts off the US would never happen when they can use the increased demand for oil to drive their prices up even higher. Since the Saudi's own the majority of the oil fields they will not stop selling to us. The only event that would stop the Saudi's from selling their oil the the US would be if the EU attacked the Saudi oil fields and that would have the opposite effect. The Middle East would help take out the EU instead of the other way around. The smart thing for the EU to do would be to quickly withdraw their forces. The only help the EU will get in the middle east and Iraqi insurgents and old members of the Taliban that are still trying to retake control of Afghanistan, people the EU would like never associate themselves with.

The buisness with Iraq may still be hairy, but the United States has a long history of good relations with the Middle East with only two Blots on its record. The first is the foundation of Israel, which to be honest the US did not have much to do with initially. The idea was pushed threw the UN from countries that are currently members of the EU. The US does sell the Israel. So the EU and the US share that one.

The second one is the poor handing of Iraq.

Asside from those two instances the US had done a lot of positive deals Middle East. We played a big role in making Saudi Arbia a very wealthy nation. We helped funded the Afghanistan resistance against the Soviet Union and provided them with Arms and Training to get the job done.

As a matter of fact we where good terms with Osama Ben Laden until the first Gulf War, but that was because he wanted to take his Mujah Hadine forces who'd ran the Russians out Afganistan to go into Kuwait and Liberate them from the Iraqi. The Saudi royal family denied him in favor of the caolition army to take care of the conflict. After that happened the Mujah Hadine became Alcaida. 

We gave Kuwait their sovereignty back after Sadam Hussan invaded them and we played the major role in liberating Afghanistan from the Taliban, which we helped put into power in the first place if that makes any sense.

Basically the US track record in the Middle East not bad. To be honest, a lot Moslems are more pissed off cartoon picturing Muhammad than they are with mismanagement of the war.

The US track record in the Middle East is enough that they will not immediately jump the the war bandwagon. The only chance the EU would have is if they convinced Iran to cause problems but then that would only cause the Saudis and the Iranians to but heads which would lead to middle eastern war between the Saudis,  the Egyptions, the Jordianians, and possibly the Lebonesse against the Iranians, the Taliban reminents Afghanistan and the Iranian funded insurgents in Iraq. Thats probably the only other way that you could limit Middle Eastern oil from America. That would be damn costly though because the Europians would be cut off also. The Middle East exists in a very delicate balance. A lot of them where already fighting amongst themselves a long time before the US ever got involved in the area. The only scenario that would work for the EU would be to intentionally destabilize the entire region.


----------



## strongarm85 (Apr 1, 2008)

I mean seriously, do you guys have any idea how much money the Saudi Royal Family has made from us? The Saudi Royal family have built an indoor ski resort in the middle of Riyadh in the middle of the damn desert. Its a huge ass building thats that about 30 to 40 stories tall. Inside the building is small mountain that is covered by real snow generated from one of the most advance air conditioning systems in the world today and the majority of the money that built this structure came from oil sold to the US. 

The Saudis are not going to turn off the tap to their number customer unless something drastic, along the lines of an act of war, forces them to. Even then its not likely to happen because we protect their oil shipping lanes with our navy.


----------



## Dave (Apr 1, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> Even more so than claiming that mafia was going to help the Europeon Union win the war.



  :rofl


----------



## strongarm85 (Apr 1, 2008)

Yeah, I know right!


----------



## thrawn (inactive) (Apr 1, 2008)

i cant help here because i am not a military geek.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 1, 2008)

EvilMoogle said:


> Was a blank post, not a video.



Weird, it worked for me

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efjcrbNcW6s[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Zaru (Apr 1, 2008)

I'm going out of lurk mode because I've been following this thread for days now.


There seems to be one big misconception about the European Union. And that is that it's a UNION.

The US is one state, one military, one leader.

The EU is... well, more than two dozen states with their own interests and distrust/hatred for other countries (just look at germany - france) that has existed way longer than the United states.

Assuming they could and would immediately coordinate their military COMBINED against the single US army is hopeful thinking, nothing more.

Assuming it would even come down to a ground war (as shown in the thread, the air force plays a huge role), bloodlusted or not, it would end up in nothing short of a CHAOS.

The EU is neither designed NOR designated to have a combined, single military force. It's all single entities, and going by length of decisions and buerocracy level, the EU isn't exactly what I'd call "lean".




Another fallacy was when someone said that germany theoretically has 18+ million people registered in the Bundeswehr.

That's simply not gonna work. You can't draw in millions of people without the economy collapsing. (Unless you send the millions of unemployed )

With that military system, heck even AUSTRIA would have a million-sized army, but those numbers mean nothing.


----------



## strongarm85 (Apr 1, 2008)

Well that was also pretty much a given to begin with, but even knowing that most of us felt it was only fair to let the guys arguing for the EU to have at least that just show that even if they worked together it would ultimately be futile. The only two countries that consistute a real threat are England and France and once they're out of the picture its pretty much over after that.


----------



## Wuzzman (Apr 1, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> Well that was also pretty much a given to begin with, but even knowing that most of us felt it was only fair to let the guys arguing for the EU to have at least that just show that even if they worked together it would ultimately be futile. The only two countries that consistute a real threat are England and France and once they're out of the picture its pretty much over after that.



france is never a threat....70+ years of world history proves that as fact


----------



## Sylar (Apr 1, 2008)

Why were trees planted in Paris?

So the Germans could march in the shade.


----------



## Sasori (Apr 2, 2008)

Posting after Zaru.

And what he says is true.

It's on the news all the time about the distrust and disagreements. Even bloodlust they wouldn't be prepared or co-ordinated in time.


----------



## Soul Vibe (Apr 2, 2008)

for those of you who are still skeptic about the F-22 simulation i posted about, here's an article on the capabilities of the F-22:

[X​_X] Minami-ke Okawari - 12 [AA000012].avi



> The gun kill is a capability Air Force planners hope their F-22s won't use. The fighter is designed to destroy a foe well beyond his visual and radar range. Within visual-range combat and, in particular, gun kills are anachronisms. *In amassing 144 kills to no losses* during the first week of the joint-service Northern Edge exercise in Alaska last summer, only three air-to-air "kills" were in the visual arena--two involving AIM-9 Sidewinders and one the F-22's cannon.


----------



## Blue (Apr 2, 2008)

Well, yeah, I didn't want to burn a beaten dead horse, but only in the delusional fanboy dreams of foreign politicians can anything compete with the F-22.
It's not simply "cockriding" as someone put it - it's a fact. Let's look at development and unit costs on the best fighter in the world and the second best.



> In April 2006, the cost of the F-22A was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft.





> One disadvantage in the Typhoon's $58 million price. It is more expensive than the $30 million F-16, while the F-35 is expected to cost on average about $50 million when it comes into production.



Now, if you wanted to buy an F-22 yourself... well, first of all, you're way too fucking rich, and second, the US government wouldn't sell you one. But if you could, it would cost about $138 million. 
The difference between the two figures is the research and development costs added in. Basically each F-22 is costing the government about 7 times what a Eurofighter is costing.

What do you think is inside every F-22 that's worth 6 Eurofighters? Leather seating? Power windows and door locks? 
Maybe stealth and avionics systems decades in advance of anything else on the planet?

By the way, the only reason the F-35 costs less than a Eurofighter is because most of it's research and development was accomplished with the F-22, and because the US alone is building almost 2000 F-35s, twice the number of Eurofighters all of Europe is building, bringing the unit cost down to almost base cost. It's a superior fighter as well.


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (Apr 3, 2008)

As said in on the 1st page I think, the navy is the determining factor in such a conflict assuming the other countries in the world don't cooperate with either side. In that case, I'm not convinced that either side could gain a significant advantage when it comes to deployment. USA is certainly better equipped though, so in the end, they might make better work of it though. 

I was somewhat amused though, in watching a US navy exercise in which the object was to sink a decommissioned destroyer. The lead vessel in the exercise had malfunctioning equipment and actually misfired a weapon. I was quite surprised that would even be shown on tv, but it certainly is a kink.

@Espada: That was an interesting article you linked to. I wouldn't put too much faith in the findings though. There is an inherent problem (which is admitted in the article) with simulating foreign aircraft that you don't have exact data for. The more laughable issue for me though is the attempt to simulate inherently superior aircraft with aircraft that don't have the same capabilities. Just a thought.

@Blue: The F22 certainly does have probably the best budget attached to it. I also agree that in an aerial engagement, it's possible that an F22 would come out on top over the Eurofighter, but it is by no means a certainty. Conflicts like those make simulation stats mostly useless to anyone besides engineers. The actual match for the F22 are the Su-35 and and its later variants (these are not really production aircraft though as far as I know).

Also, don't be too impressed by the budget. In speaking to other engineers and researching military tech, I've seen that Americans in general have a tendency to over-engineer things, mainly because of the resources available. Its the story of the American space pen vs. a Russian pencil. The most expensive weapon, isn't necessarily the most effective.


----------



## Blue (Apr 3, 2008)

blacklusterseph004 said:


> @Blue: The F22 certainly does have probably the best budget attached to it. I also agree that in an aerial engagement, it's possible that an F22 would come out on top over the Eurofighter, but it is by no means a certainty. Conflicts like those make simulation stats mostly useless to anyone besides engineers. The actual match for the F22 are the Su-35 and and its later variants (these are not really production aircraft though as far as I know).


First of all, no. The F-22 is massively superior in all regards to the Su-35. Here, check out this handy-dandy chart.

Aircraft 	Odds vs. Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 	*10.1:1*
Eurofighter Typhoon 	*4.5:1*
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' *	1.0:1*
Dassault Rafale C 	*1.0:1*
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 	*0.8:1*
Boeing F/A-18+ 	*0.4:1*
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 	*0.3:1*
General Dynamics F-16C 	*0.3:1*

That's from Britain's Defense Evaluation and Research Agency. It was just a computer simulation of course, and shouldn't be taken as reality, but it was based on the best actual military data Britain had at the time. Also, just because a Typhoon can nail half as many 35s as a F-22 doesn't mean it could take them out on a 2:1 basis. This simulation probably figured a certain "luck factor" into the equation. As we've seen in actual exercises, which trump computer simulations, the kill ratio for an F-22 against F-15s (similar in capability to the Su35) is more like 200:1.
Second, as you noted, the Su-35 is just Russia having wet dreams that they can still compete with the west. I doubt it performs as specified, and even if it does, Russia has about enough money to pay for the landing gear on one.

Also I realize it's just wiki, but look at the  and  pages, and scroll down to near the bottom, where it says "comparable fighters."

Now do the same for the . I found it amusing.



> Also, don't be too impressed by the budget. In speaking to other engineers and researching military tech, I've seen that Americans in general have a tendency to over-engineer things, mainly because of the resources available. Its the story of the American space pen vs. a Russian pencil. The most expensive weapon, isn't necessarily the most effective.


I would think that the engineers at Lockheed and Boeing, who have been building military aircraft for much longer than most of the Eurofighter contractors, would be somewhat offended at the implication.


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (Apr 3, 2008)

The problem I have with ratios like that is that these organizations inherently simulate things they expect an enemy pilot to do. Its not like the rest of the world is ignorant of what an F22 is and can do, and though it might strain your imagination, the technical advantage isn't that big. The west and russia have inherently different views of fighter combat, and that is reflected in their designs. 

Do you ever wonder why Flankers are held in high regard despite having literally massive airframes compared to jets like F-16's, and being recognized for manoeuvres such as 'the cobra' even in the pre-thrust vectoring variants like the Su-27? (I believe it was actually this plane that first showed this manoeuvre at the Paris airshow some time in the '90s. I may be mistaken though). Sukhoi airframe and engine design is fearsome, despite what simulation would lead you to believe, and with the incorporation of thrust vectoring systems, this plane is an extremely dangerous opponent for ANY fighter. 

Like I said, the differing combat philosophies can't be ignored in how these planes are simulated. As you saw in the F22 tests vs F15, majority of kills are at stand-off range avoiding close fighting. To maintain its stealth profile, F22's carry an internal payload which gives it an alternate combat persistence. Comparatively, Flankers have massive combat persistence and no stealth tech. The difference in thinking being,  that it doesn't matter if you see them coming if you can't shoot them down. So F22's have low combat persistence, and emphasis on kills before close engagement. The logic behind that is chances for survival at close range begin to drop, as a large number of fighters exist that have airframes well suited for these types of engagements, and your stealth tech is less useful if the opponent can see you.



> I would think that the engineers at Lockheed and Boeing, who have been building military aircraft for much longer than most of the Eurofighter contractors, would be somewhat offended at the implication.


Whether they are offended or not is irrelevant, and frankly, I don't see why they should be. It's quite simple, ingenuity is not as necessary when you can throw more money at a problem. Not to say that there aren't brilliant engineers at Lockheed, but the tendency to over engineer is something I have seen. That in itself is not an insult either, which I hope you didn't think from the point I was making. Which is simply, the most expensive weapon is not always the most effective. That's true not only in USA, but engineers everywhere know that.


----------



## Sengoku (Apr 3, 2008)

blacklusterseph004 said:


> The problem I have with ratios like that is that these organizations inherently simulate things they expect an enemy pilot to do. Its not like the rest of the world is ignorant of what an F22 is and can do, and though it might strain your imagination, the technical advantage isn't that big. The west and russia have inherently different views of fighter combat, and that is reflected in their designs.
> 
> Do you ever wonder why Flankers are held in high regard despite having literally massive airframes compared to jets like F-16's, and being recognized for manoeuvres such as 'the cobra' even in the pre-thrust vectoring variants like the Su-27? (I believe it was actually this plane that first showed this manoeuvre at the Paris airshow some time in the '90s. I may be mistaken though). Sukhoi airframe and engine design is fearsome, despite what simulation would lead you to believe, and with the incorporation of thrust vectoring systems, this plane is an extremely dangerous opponent for ANY fighter.
> 
> ...




I don't care HOW much thrust su-27 can put out or how much faster than the f-22. Before the Su-27 can even detect the f-22, the pilot is fucked into oblivion. 
Good post nonetheless. After the f-22's development, I don't see the su-27 or 37 ever touching the raptors :/.

Though, it is kind of weird to see namco placing some of su-37's stats as high as f22's in Ace Combat :X


----------



## Blue (Apr 3, 2008)

Sengoku said:


> Though, it is kind of weird to see namco placing some of su-37's stats as high as f22's in Ace Combat :X


Well, not really. Actual stats would pretty much make the 22 god mode.

Also @ Seph
The thing is the F-22 carries enough missiles to kill 8 enemy aircraft (while in stealth configuration - it can carry twice that many without sneaking) which, if you have a single wing of Raptors, is enough to waste 64 aircraft.

Most countries don't even have 64 aircraft.
Then the Raptors can just head back and get some more missiles. Combat endurance is practically irrelevant.
And if a Raptor goes winchester and still has fuel - here's the really fun part - it can function as an AWACS platform for other allies aircraft, meaning even the busted old F-15s are going to be wiping stuff out without ever being seen. They can use the Raptor's targeting data to achieve aspect lock from over the horizon.
That is like an Air Force general's wet dream.

I mean, I'm not sure how to describe this to you.
Say if you took the stealth off an F-22.
And then replaced its radar with an Sukhoi radar.
and then removed it's ECM gear.

THEN the Su-35 would be a match for it.

As it is, the F-22 can cruise about 10000 feet higher than any comparable aircraft, and its radar has twice the range of any other fighter. Also, nothing can detect it on radar until it's right on top of it.


----------



## Lezard Valeth (Apr 4, 2008)

Europe nukes USA, USA nukes Europe
No winner, only losers


----------



## Wuzzman (Apr 4, 2008)

except there won't be a western europe.....


----------



## Blue (Apr 4, 2008)

The J-Man said:


> Europe nukes USA, USA nukes Europe
> No winner, only losers



Europe can't nuke USA. If it gets lucky it could sneak a British missile submarine close enough to nail a few cities. US polishes Europe to a mirror finish with ICBMs.


----------



## escamoh (Apr 4, 2008)

damn blue you pwned this thread


----------



## Biolink (Apr 4, 2008)

F-22 Raptor is badass.

It is now my new hero.

What of the F-35 Lighting II?


----------



## Sengoku (Apr 4, 2008)

Biolink said:


> F-22 Raptor is badass.
> 
> It is now my new hero.
> 
> What of the F-35 Lighting II?



f-35s are newer but not as advanced as f22s

f22 > f35


----------



## BAD BD (Apr 4, 2008)

F22 solos

US wins. EU only has France and England. The rest barely have any military force. 

If Nuke War US wins. We tricked everyone else into disarming while we made more and better bombs.


----------



## thrawn (inactive) (Apr 5, 2008)

Russia still has more nukes than US.


----------



## Sylar (Apr 5, 2008)

Shame not a single one will ever reach the US...


----------



## Hibari Kyoya (Apr 5, 2008)

China would come in and stomp them both


----------



## Wuzzman (Apr 5, 2008)

this should be China vs Eu....


----------



## Sengoku (Apr 5, 2008)

Hibari Kyoya said:


> China would come in and stomp them both



May I ask how exactly?


----------



## Girl I don't care (Apr 5, 2008)

USA's got F-22!!! even Starscream wanted to be one.


----------



## Hibari Kyoya (Apr 5, 2008)

Sengoku said:


> May I ask how exactly?



1billion soliders


----------



## Arishem (Apr 5, 2008)

China will build a giant raft and float them in America's direction.


----------



## Dave (Apr 5, 2008)

Hibari Kyoya said:


> 1billion soliders



Will get killed, yes, I agree.


----------



## thrawn (inactive) (Apr 8, 2008)

China Sucks. All they do is make pirated goods and sell them for low prices.


----------



## Sengoku (Apr 9, 2008)

Hibari Kyoya said:


> 1billion soliders



Yet they dont even have the technology to transport any of their soldiers across the seas

their amphibious vehicles are so limited.. billions of soldiers or not, missile > soldiers.


----------



## Blue (Apr 9, 2008)

Yeah, it's seriously tiring that people think a huge number of dudes with AK-47s are going to make a difference in a modern war. 

I was actually going to make an EU vs. China thread, but it would be boring. It would seriously last like 20 or 30 years unless Europe Zerg rushed China fast.


----------



## Girl I don't care (Apr 9, 2008)

thrawn said:


> China Sucks. All they do is make pirated goods and sell them for low prices.



that's what makes them awesome


----------



## Wuzzman (Apr 9, 2008)

Blue said:


> Yeah, it's seriously tiring that people think a huge number of dudes with AK-47s are going to make a difference in a modern war.
> 
> I was actually going to make an EU vs. China thread, but it would be boring. It would seriously last like 20 or 30 years unless Europe Zerg rushed China fast.



when will europe get the balls to zerg rush china?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Apr 9, 2008)

Try to stay on topic people.

If the USA vs. EU is played out, let the thread die.  If someone wants to make a EU vs. China they're more than welcome to, but it doesn't need to be here.


----------



## Gentle Fist (Apr 9, 2008)

We win conventional war. why??

1. More organized (not a bunch of countries working together, but one giant beast)
2. More resources (we spend more on military than all those countries combined)
3. Israel (probably the best trained military force in the world as our ally)

We win nuclear war. why??

We will be the first to use them, game over


----------



## Lord Genome (Apr 9, 2008)

Out of curiousity, how would EU fair against the US if Russia got involved to?

*finds thread incredibly interesting*


----------



## thrawn (inactive) (Apr 10, 2008)

Russia has more nukes than US.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Apr 10, 2008)

thrawn said:


> Russia has more nukes than US.



Too bad they don't know where a lot of them are. Level of technology might be the same (possibly in Russia's favor), though. 

As far as strategic location is concerned, however, Russia doesn't have shit on us.


----------



## Sengoku (Apr 10, 2008)

Lord Genome said:


> Out of curiousity, how would EU fair against the US if Russia got involved to?
> 
> *finds thread incredibly interesting*



Russia will help a little but US would still win, imo.

just remember that Russia is in a very very *shitty* economical situation right now.
They cant even feed their own damn troops lol. China would fare better than Russia.

And Soup, US > Russia in terms of technology. Why do you think countries like China are trying to steal technologies from the US?


----------



## strongarm85 (Apr 10, 2008)

Yeah, when the Soviet Union broke up they lost a lot of their nuclear missiles. Its the main reason why terrorist getting their hands on one of them is such a risk.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Apr 10, 2008)

the amount of money the US spends on warfare and technology is phenomenal.
just take a look at this: 
the US spends almost as much money on military as the rest of the world. there's no way Europe can compete with that.


----------



## Blue (Apr 11, 2008)

If Russia is involved, conventional war is still a stomp, but an invasion becomes impossible.

Nuclear war turns into mutual glassing.



> when will europe get the balls to zerg rush china?


Never, but if they're going at it anyway, it's their only chance.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Apr 11, 2008)

No one wins in war.


----------



## Blue (Apr 11, 2008)

Gentlemen, I like war,
Gentlemen, I like war,
Gentlemen, I love war,
I like Genocide,
I like Blitzkrieg,
I like aggressive war,
I like defensive war,
I like sieges,
I like breaking through,
I like withdrawing,
I like cleaning up,
I like retreating,
In moors,
On highways,
In trenches,
In plains,
On tundra,
In desert,
On sea,
In sky,
In mud,
In marshes,
I love every aspect of war that takes place on this earth,
I like blowing away the enemy with the thunderous roar of a line of guns going off all at once,
When an enemy is shot to pieces after being thrown high into the air, my heart dances, I like crushing the enemy tank with the 88mm on our tanks, when I mowed down the enemy who fled screaming from the burning tank with a MG, my heart leapt,
I like it when the infantry plow through the enemy's lines with their bayonets all in line,
I remember being moved when seeing new recruits, filled with panic, stabbing an already dead enemy again and again,
Seeing an escapee being strung from a lamp post in the street is unendurably exciting, Seeing a captive be thrown down with a piercing shriek as my own hand fell was spectacular,
When the pitiful resistance came bravely with their small firearms, and we destroyed them and a good chunk of the city with the 4.8 ton bomb,
I was at my height,
I like it when we are destroyed with the morning dew,
It is a sad thing when the town one is supposed to protect is trampled, and the women and children violated and killed,
I like being squashed and destroyed by England and America's amount of material resources,
Being followed by English and American forces and having to crawl around on the ground like a pesky insect is the ultimate disgrace,
Gentlemen, I desire a war that is like hell,
Gentlemen, my companions in the battalion, who follow me,
Gentlemen what do you desire?,
Do you desire war as well?,
Do you desire a war of no mercy?
Do you desire a conflict that stretches the limits of iron, wind, lighting and fire to the limit, one that will destroy all the crows on this planet?


----------



## Dave (Apr 11, 2008)

Redux-shika boo said:


> No one wins in war.



The people who sell the weapons do.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Apr 11, 2008)

WWII was one of the bigger (arguably the main) reasons America got out of the GD.
So yea, sometimes people win in wars. 
Honestly, I don't like war either, but to say that "nobody wins, ever" is really cliche, unsubstantiated, and just plain wrong. War-haters need to realize that they are not as pragmatic as they probably think they are; in fact, they are simply on the other end of the spectrum from the war-mongers.


----------



## Gary (Apr 11, 2008)

whoever used the nukes frist win ? destory the world and if bush is the president then were all going to die


----------



## Sengoku (Apr 11, 2008)

i hate sasuke said:


> whoever used the nukes frist win ? destory the world and if bush is the president then were all going to die



bush? how so?


----------



## Sylar (Apr 11, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> WWII was one of the bigger (arguably the main) reasons America got out of the GD.
> So yea, sometimes people win in wars.
> Honestly, I don't like war either, but to say that "nobody wins, ever" is really cliche, unsubstantiated, and just plain wrong. War-haters need to realize that they are not as pragmatic as they probably think they are; in fact, they are simply on the other end of the spectrum from the war-mongers.



Actually if it wasn't for Harry Truman, the US would've gone right back into a depression like after WWI.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Apr 11, 2008)

Sylar said:


> Actually if it wasn't for Harry Truman, the US would've gone right back into a depression like after WWI.



Well...after a war is over, strategy has to shift. Rite?


----------



## Wuzzman (Apr 11, 2008)

yeah...even Jimmy cater could have lead the USA economy after the economic boom that happended during WWII....


----------



## Fang (Apr 11, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> Well...after a war is over, strategy has to shift. Rite?



There were other factors that lead to that economic boom, like the rebuilding of Japan and the next generations worth of trade with Japan, ect...

Also lol at this massive EU underestimating like the National Guard beating EU's standing armies.


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 11, 2008)

Europeans spread smallpox, measles and other diseases that while they imunize themselves against, america has wiped out instead 




Fail thread still fails


----------



## Blue (Apr 11, 2008)

Mirai Gohan said:


> Also lol at this massive EU underestimating like the National Guard beating EU's standing armies.


What's cool about this thread is, unlike the fictional battles where one of the mangaka can decide one week to let us know that his character is omnipotent and make my assumptions completely wrong, I know for a fact that I'm right. :3


----------



## Zaru (Apr 11, 2008)

Ironically enough, the new EU reformation contract would cause european states to spend more money on their military.

(But the goverments have to sign that behind the people's back because that's completely retarded)


----------



## Banhammer (Apr 11, 2008)

Hi Zaru


----------



## thrawn (inactive) (Apr 12, 2008)

Banhammer, Why do you call this thread a fail?


----------



## Wuzzman (Apr 12, 2008)

Cause EU fails......


----------



## Aokiji (Apr 13, 2008)

Wuzzman said:


> Cause EU fails......



Butthurt much?


----------



## Wuzzman (Apr 13, 2008)

EU stills fail....................


----------



## Rated R Superstar (May 28, 2008)

This thread was inspired by the S.A.S VS Navy Seals thread. Two of the most powerful militaries on the planet go toe to toe. The Seals, Marines, and the Army, vs The Royal Air force, Royal Navy, and the S.A.S. Who wins.


----------



## Sylar (May 28, 2008)

We owned the British asses in the Revolutionary War. We owned their asses in the War of 1812. And we will own their asses a third time.

USA utterly rapes Britain to hell and back.


----------



## Aku Shinigami (May 28, 2008)

This is full strength of both militaries? U.S. rapes in this. It has larger numbers in just about every branch of the service, and the weaponry and training is about equal for just about everything and even slight possible advantage for the U.S. plus if we consider this a full war the U.S. has a much larger population to draft from, and a much larger industrial capability.


----------



## HumanWine (May 28, 2008)

It all comes down to tech and manpower. Britain doesnt have it not matter how much skill they have.


----------



## Aokiji (May 29, 2008)

Sylar said:


> We owned the British asses in the Revolutionary War. We owned their asses in the War of 1812. And we will own their asses a third time.
> 
> USA utterly rapes Britain to hell and back.



Strange comparison. Back then, many countries could've stomped USA. 

Current USA is LOL. UK dies.


----------



## ZenGamr (May 29, 2008)

Current USA would win. If you had the same number of each group duke it out, I think the British would have a chance.


----------



## Table (May 29, 2008)

Didn't we already solve this issue?


----------



## Slips (May 29, 2008)

I would actually join the army if we went to war with the US


----------



## strongarm85 (May 29, 2008)

Yeah, thats not going to happen anytime soon though. Now if we could just gt the rest of the world to embrace democracy and make sure they're all members of the UN we could eliminate war for a while. We've got to clean up Africa before that happens though, and to be honest, most countries are willing to touch Africa with a 10 foot pole right now.


----------



## Aokiji (May 29, 2008)

strongarm85 said:


> Yeah, thats not going to happen anytime soon though. Now if we could just gt the rest of the world to embrace democracy and make sure they're all members of the UN we could eliminate war for a while. We've got to clean up Africa before that happens though, and to be honest, most countries are willing to touch Africa with a 10 foot pole right now.



Why do you give a darn about other countries? No need to "clean up" anything. 















If you really wanna clean up sht, then we'd have to stop poverty. To stop that, wealth needs to be distributed evenly in the world. That'd require the richest countries lower their standart of living. Guess how likely this is.


----------



## Sasori (May 29, 2008)

lol politics.


----------



## strongarm85 (May 29, 2008)

Aokiji said:


> Why do you give a darn about other countries? No need to "clean up" anything.
> 
> If you really wanna clean up sht, then we'd have to stop poverty. To stop that, wealth needs to be distributed evenly in the world. That'd require the richest countries lower their standart of living. Guess how likely this is.



First question, is your enter key broken or something? You don't need 10 or so spaces between paragraphs.

Second, do you even know what goes on in Africa? The majority of the countries there have been in a constant state of civil war since European imperialism ended for most of the continent. Go ahead and take a look at a globe of Africa, or a map even. Now guess what, its wrong. All of your atlas and globe makers stopped bothering trying to keep track of national borders, in decades. 

There was time back in the 90's where an African country changed rulers, and names 3 times IN THE SAME DAY! The leader of the country was diposed by a rebelion. One of the generals of that rebellion seized power, he was then betrayed by an hour later by one of his subordinates who was in turn betrayed by one his subordinates. 

Here is the simple truth. Large portions of Africa is on the verge of entering a Dark Age because Europeans destabilized almost the entire continent. In fact about the only former European colony that didn't get fucked up South Africa. 

Third, lowering the standard of living in a country does not make the standard of living an another country any better than it already is. I don't know who is feeding you this crap, but its complete bullshit. 

If you want a good example of how to bring money to a poor country take good a look at China. Ever since Nixon came down and opened China up to the West they've been manufacturing and exporting just about every kind of good you can think of. Ten years ago if you went to major city in China everybody was ridding on bicycles. Now everybody has cars. 

As a matter of fact people are buying cars so quickly in China and India, when they couldn't afford to buy them just a few years earlier, that worldwide demand for oil skyrocketed leading to the current oil prices we have today. US oil consumption is actually decreasing because lower class people in our own country get to make the hard decision between buying gas and buying food.

In the mean time Africa is just keeps getting worse all the time. The reality of Africa goes beyond them having money. You cannot have economic growth in a region that is unstable. Between the Warlords, the Rebellions, and the factious Dictators there is no hope for improving the situation for the long term by throwing money at it.


----------



## ZenGamr (May 29, 2008)

As much as we want world peace and a good standard of living for everyone, ummm...............it's just not going to happen in a million years.


----------



## Rice Ball (May 29, 2008)

Theres already a thread called USA v Europe (which is basically the same battle).
Locking this untill i can find and merge them

Edit- Found it, god i wish i didn't, this thread sucks.


----------



## Sylar (May 29, 2008)

Aokiji said:


> Why do you give a darn about other countries? No need to "clean up" anything.
> 
> If you really wanna clean up sht, then we'd have to stop poverty. To stop that, wealth needs to be distributed evenly in the world. That'd require the richest countries lower their standart of living. Guess how likely this is.



LOL Darfur.


----------



## Rice Ball (May 29, 2008)

Rated R Superstar said:


> ^What's the ISD?



Imperial Star Destroyer


----------



## Shock Therapy (May 29, 2008)

If this gets down to nukes we're all fucked anyways.


----------



## Rated R Superstar (May 29, 2008)

^Exactly, because if all nukes were to be let loose, the world would be destroyed 7 times over.


----------



## strongarm85 (May 29, 2008)

That'll never happen though. The whole purpose of having nukes is to never use them. It is like telling the rest of the world. "Hey don't fuck with us, or in the worst case scenario we'll take you down with us."


----------



## Soul Vibe (May 30, 2008)

lol what does an Imperial Star Destroyer have to do with this thread?


----------



## strongarm85 (May 30, 2008)

EU is also the initials for Star Wars' Expanded Universe.


----------



## thrawn (inactive) (May 31, 2008)

What does the ISD got to do with this thread.
When i said EU i meant European Union not Expanded Universe.


----------



## ZenGamr (May 31, 2008)

ISD would solo planet Earth.


----------



## Soul Vibe (May 31, 2008)

^indeed, it's obvious the OP didnt mean Expanded Universe.


----------



## strongarm85 (May 31, 2008)

It was a joke...


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 5, 2008)

Sorry for reviving an older topic but it's pretty epic with all the inaccuracies and deeply rooted xenophobia that you can read between the lines I just had to add my 2 cents. 

Besides with the recent recession it makes all the claims of the US having a stronger economy kinda funny. But even back when this topic was written, the US could already barely afford to be at war in Iraq and Afganistan and they're not even modern armies that are being fought. It's practically third world countries. If you look at all the trouble that has caused, how can you even think of the possibility that the US would somehow magically do better against an opponent like Europe that is roughly the equivalent of the US in almost every way? It costs too much money, the US army has never been designed to be cost effective. 

Anyone that said the US have a better economy, or more inhabitants, we'll they're wrong on both accounts. The US has a slight lead in weapons technology, it's not as big as people think. To name something off the top of my head the joint strike fighter that the US is prepping this last decade is partly manufactured in europe also. So the technology is being shared and largely available to both sides.
The biggest difference is the relative budget for the military. I dunno about prep time, but because of the budget, right now the US has a bigger army. Given enough time and both sides going to total war, this would be largely a non-issue. Also considering how European designed fighter planes, tanks, etc are usually relatively cheaper than their US counterparts, I think they could more easily afford to expand their armies.

So I think in a conventional war situation, it would be largely undecided. Neither side can have a decisive victory over the other. Not to mention it would be fought mostly in the air and at sea, and because of this, both sides would be able to hold off the other for years (many years) even if they are with their backs against the wall. 
Not completely the same but nevertheless a somewhat usefull comparison is how the UK held off the massively bigger Third reich for years in WW2. This is the scenario that would unfold in a US vs EU war, but with somewhat more equal sides.

In a nuclear scenario, even though the US has easily fifteen to twenty times the arsenal that Europe has, it's completely irrelevant, because with 500+ nuclear bombs Europe also has the arsenal to completely level all the important parts of the US. So it's almost a guaranteed tie.

Again the words 'cost effective' come to mind if you look at the amount of nuclear weapons both sides have.


----------



## Hapayahapaya (Oct 5, 2008)

The only reason why the USA is having so much trouble in Iraq in Afghanistan is that they're not fighting a real, conventional war. If the USA declared war against the EU, and vice versa, it would be a ridiculous stomp for the USA. Not even a comparison.

And as for technology, sure Europe isn't that far behind, but we have a LOT more of the really good stuff.

Also, if this current recession is anything close to what the Great Depression was, then a war with the EU would be a perfect thing to get the American wartime economy rolling.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 5, 2008)

Hapayahapaya said:


> The only reason why the USA is having so much trouble in Iraq in Afghanistan is that they're not fighting a real, conventional war. If the USA declared war against the EU, and vice versa, it would be a ridiculous stomp for the USA. Not even a comparison.



And if somehow the US would get troups in the EU, they won't fight a guerilla war, why? It has proven time and time again that guerilla warfare does critical damage to the US, so why wouldn't the EU revert to that as a last resort and just roll over?

But trust me it wouldn't even come to that, both sides would be depleted before one of them gets a decisive upper hand.


----------



## Hapayahapaya (Oct 6, 2008)

Kind of a big deal said:


> And if somehow the US would get troups in the EU, they won't fight a guerilla war, why? It has proven time and time again that guerilla warfare does critical damage to the US, so why wouldn't the EU revert to that as a last resort and just roll over?
> 
> But trust me it wouldn't even come to that, both sides would be depleted before one of them gets a decisive upper hand.



Because if it was a total all-out war, the USA wouldn't bother with such tactics. Group of insurgents holed up in a town? Just firebomb the whole place. 

In Iraq and Vietnam, the USA had to both destroy the insurgents while trying to maintain good relations with the civilians of the country. In a hypothetical all-out war against the EU, the USA wouldn't have to worry about it.

It all boils down to how brutal the USA is willing to get.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 6, 2008)

I don't think it would go like that. Actually literally burning everything to the ground costs a surprising amount of resources, there's absolutely no way they could keep that up. You can't just 'firebomb the whole place'. You can be less acccurate, sure, but you'd never be able to literally burn every single patch of ground over an entire continent, that's just rediculous. Even with many nukes you wouldn't be able to do that.

Besides with a tactic like that the scenario unfolds not unlike a nuclear attack, if the US would breach international regulations and try to literally burn every single patch of untouched ground (which is propostrous but for the sake of argument), then the EU with their backs against the wall would still have the option to unleash diseases and other biological weapons on the US, who would of course retalliate in the same way. And it ends in a tie.

Besides that, it's a stupid tactic to destroy everything. It's like they would be applying the scorched earth tactic on themselves. If the US would actually arrive on the mainland and they start destroying everything, the EU forces would only have to fall back towards Russia because the US is destroying everything to get to them, but this would destroy the infrastructure and all other usefull resources and make it much too difficult and costly to advance. It would be a classic strategic mistake.


----------



## Federer (Oct 6, 2008)

Seriously EU wins this war, loot at the countries!

1. Great Brittain
2. France
3. Germany
4. Spain
5. Portugal
6. Holland
7. Sweden
8. Ireland


You fill in. 

In a nuclaer war, we need Russia, though.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 6, 2008)

Wow, what a necro. 
Anyway, America still has the best Air Force in the world, and that alone would probably be the dealbreaker in almost any war


----------



## Federer (Oct 6, 2008)

soupnazi235 said:


> Wow, what a necro.
> Anyway, America still has the best Air Force in the world, and that alone would probably be the dealbreaker in almost any war



Spain solos USA, they have Rafeal Nadal. 

And pretty much whole South-America, if Spain is in trouble.


----------



## Gig (Oct 6, 2008)

Sabakukyu said:


> Seriously EU wins this war, loot at the countries!
> 
> 1. Great Brittain
> 2. France
> ...



Holland is part of the Netherlands there not separate nations


----------



## Caedus (Oct 6, 2008)

The United States are untouchable in the air

There is no known fighter that can match it..

Once Air Superiority is achieved, its pretty much over from there


----------



## Federer (Oct 6, 2008)

Gig said:


> Holland is part of the Netherlands there not separate nations



^ - ^ 

Fixed.


----------



## Jon Snow (Oct 6, 2008)

It's over.


----------



## TheHolyDarkness (Oct 6, 2008)

*lol wut?*

Wow...just....wow. I'll waste my time with this absurd thread later. 

~TheHolyDarkness Out~


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 6, 2008)

Killua said:


> It's over.





It's happening all over the world (minus the parts that just have major food shortages...third world kind of stuff). Get your facts straight, please.


----------



## Platinum (Oct 6, 2008)

Conventional war US shitstomps with advanced navy and airforce. Nueclear war ends in a draw.


----------



## RyokoForTheWin (Oct 6, 2008)

Nuclear war ends in a draw? More like we'd both lose.


----------



## Hapayahapaya (Oct 6, 2008)

Kind of a big deal said:


> I don't think it would go like that. Actually literally burning everything to the ground costs a surprising amount of resources, there's absolutely no way they could keep that up. You can't just 'firebomb the whole place'. You can be less acccurate, sure, but you'd never be able to literally burn every single patch of ground over an entire continent, that's just rediculous. Even with many nukes you wouldn't be able to do that.
> 
> Besides with a tactic like that the scenario unfolds not unlike a nuclear attack, if the US would breach international regulations and try to literally burn every single patch of untouched ground (which is propostrous but for the sake of argument), then the EU with their backs against the wall would still have the option to unleash diseases and other biological weapons on the US, who would of course retalliate in the same way. And it ends in a tie.
> 
> Besides that, it's a stupid tactic to destroy everything. It's like they would be applying the scorched earth tactic on themselves. If the US would actually arrive on the mainland and they start destroying everything, the EU forces would only have to fall back towards Russia because the US is destroying everything to get to them, but this would destroy the infrastructure and all other usefull resources and make it much too difficult and costly to advance. It would be a classic strategic mistake.



Wouldn't go like that? It worked in WWII. Insurgencies were usually crushed because of many things, such as inferior logistical capabilities and little or no artillery to back them up. And it's not like the US is going to burn every single piece of ground, only the important ones.

At the very least, the US maintains air and naval supremacy. That is incredibly important. They park aircraft carriers off the shores of Europe and use them to bomb factories, business centers, farms, etc until the EU has little or no infrastructure yet. Then it's easy pickings.


----------



## Jon Snow (Oct 7, 2008)

Someone felt butthurt by my picture 

Sylar


----------



## Gorblax (Oct 7, 2008)

Dude, have you not SEEN Code Geass? To be fair, the Britannia (read: America) had robots whereas nobody else did, but apparently they were winning before that happened, too.


----------



## Blue (Oct 7, 2008)

Killua said:


> Someone felt butthurt by my picture
> 
> Sylar



I hate that picture because I see it once a fucking week.


----------



## Blue (Oct 7, 2008)

I started out thinking "ah crap, this guy is intelligent, I'm going to have a hard time responding" but then it got easier as I went along, and I got angrier, too.



Kind of a big deal said:


> Besides with the recent recession it makes all the claims of the US having a stronger economy kinda funny. But even back when this topic was written, the US could already barely afford to be at war in Iraq and Afganistan and they're not even modern armies that are being fought. It's practically third world countries. If you look at all the trouble that has caused, how can you even think of the possibility that the US would somehow magically do better against an opponent like Europe that is roughly the equivalent of the US in almost every way? It costs too much money, the US army has never been designed to be cost effective.


I would contend that any - "deeply rooted xenophobia" I might possess - and I doubt it's much, since I love Europe and visit at any available opportunity (I'll be in England this December) isn't nearly as bad as your lack of understanding regarding the waging of war.
First of all - "barely afford to be at war in Iraq and Afganistan".
Here's a list of the top countries in military spending by GDP - anotherwords, by percentage of the money they make:


> 1 	North Korea 	22.90
> 2 		Georgia 	15.90[
> 3 		Oman 	11.40
> 4 	Qatar 	10.00
> ...


Hey, look who isn't even on there.

Hm.

Everybody say "hm".

Besides that, you also fail to understand that the American military is the ONLY military force on the entire planet that can do what it's doing currently: Waging war on the other side of the globe. Yes, it costs a ton of money. Yes, there are difficulties. But nobody else could even do it. Not without a lot of military buildup. Your own opinion of the Iraq/Afganistan wars aside - If you think for a second that Europe could do a better job of it, you're sorely mistaken. The EU is in NO WAY equivalent to the US in military capability, and saying it is is just inviting pointless discourse. 




> Anyone that said the US have a better economy, or more inhabitants, we'll they're wrong on both accounts. The US has a slight lead in weapons technology, it's not as big as people think. To name something off the top of my head the joint strike fighter that the US is prepping this last decade is partly manufactured in europe also. So the technology is being shared and largely available to both sides.


The US has a MASSIVE lead in weapons technology. The JSF is going to be the single most advanced fighter Europe has - yes, including the Eurofighter - and it's a joke on wings next to the F-22. The F-22 is the most famous and obvious example of cutting-edge military tech, but it's not the only one. Advanced radar systems, airborne lasers, command-and-control technology - the US doesn't even THINK about selling these to anyone. 
Except Japan. Because they're a bunch of pussies anyway, need the tech, and yen are really shiny. Congress is thinking about selling them top-tier stuff, but it still hasn't been approved.





> The biggest difference is the relative budget for the military. I dunno about prep time, but because of the budget, right now the US has a bigger army. Given enough time and both sides going to total war, this would be largely a non-issue. Also considering how European designed fighter planes, tanks, etc are usually relatively cheaper than their US counterparts, I think they could more easily afford to expand their armies.


...
If you think a 50 million dollar fighter is equivalent to a 250 million dollar fighter, I'm not talking to you.



> Not completely the same but nevertheless a somewhat usefull comparison is how the UK held off the massively bigger Third reich for years in WW2. This is the scenario that would unfold in a US vs EU war, but with somewhat more equal sides.


Haha, no? 
What, the heroes of the RAF are going to defeat 19 carrier battle groups and a cloud of cruise missiles that blots out the sun? Come on now.



> In a nuclear scenario, even though the US has easily fifteen to twenty times the arsenal that Europe has, it's completely irrelevant, because with 500+ nuclear bombs Europe also has the arsenal to completely level all the important parts of the US. So it's almost a guaranteed tie.


No, you're wrong about that, too. If Russia is included, yeah, it's a mutual leveling. But without Russia, the only means Europe has to nail the US with nukes is British submarines, maybe one or two of which could make it close enough to launch, if they're lucky. The Atlantic coast would suffer, but the majority of American cities would make it through.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 7, 2008)

More interesting information to add onto Blue's: 
The 2005 U.S. military budget was almost as much as the rest of the world's defense spending combined.


----------



## BAD BD (Oct 7, 2008)

Great success for the US.


----------



## Platinum (Oct 8, 2008)

RyokoForTheWin said:


> Nuclear war ends in a draw? More like we'd both lose.



that's what i meant. If both sides are dead isn't it a draw . Once US complete ICBM missile defense programs the US will easily slam the EU in a hypothetical war.


----------



## MrSmoke (Oct 8, 2008)

EU takes this i mean HALF of usa dosent even f***ing do anything.
and nuclear war? well..whoever presses the big red buttons first


----------



## Shock Therapy (Oct 8, 2008)

MrSmoke said:


> EU takes this i mean HALF of usa dosent even f***ing do anything.
> and nuclear war? well..whoever presses the big red buttons first



where did u get this info? and how does half the usa not doing anything make the EU win?


----------



## Choshino (Oct 9, 2008)

*Scenario 1:* Dude the US loses. We have a bigger army, more tanks, more jets, more ships and so on. And btw US navy is best? what have you been smokeing?, The US navy practise to hunt down Swedish submarines the have never * NEVER* been able to find us. And the back up from the enormous iron/metal and oil resourses from sweden and norway is enough to support Europe, at the same time Russia, German and Spain supports us with soldier numbers, tanks and jets. And couse that swedens and UKs pilots are the best in the world = 

*We rule the air, 
we rule the ground and 
we rule the waters*
*
Scenario 2:* No one is dumb enough to do that or reckless.
Not even Bush.


----------



## TheHolyDarkness (Oct 9, 2008)

*^_^*



Choshino said:


> *Scenario 1:* Dude the US loses. We have a bigger army, more tanks, more jets, more ships and so on. And btw US navy is best? what have you been smokeing?, The US navy practise to hunt down Swedish submarines the have never * NEVER* been able to find us. And the back up from the enormous iron/metal and oil resourses from sweden and norway is enough to support Europe, at the same time Russia, German and Spain supports us with soldier numbers, tanks and jets. And couse that swedens and UKs pilots are the best in the world =
> 
> *We rule the air,
> we rule the ground and
> ...





*simply lols*

~TheHolyDarkness Out~


----------



## rubbereruben (Oct 9, 2008)

This thread is made of fail, I can't believe it's interesting to see who can blow up eachother more efficiently.

Either way, it's obviously apparent that USA wins with their superior military capabilities, but this is like kicking a dead body and everybody knows it.

Either way, it's the only thing America has really. Superior military combat. The rest is all mhhm.

Yeah they have one of the most ignorant presidents that I believe does represent America properly. Or at least the dumber half.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 9, 2008)

Blue said:


> I would contend that any - "deeply rooted xenophobia" I might possess - and I doubt it's much, since I love Europe and visit at any available opportunity (I'll be in England this December) isn't nearly as bad as your lack of understanding regarding the waging of war.



Oh how nice.



> First of all - "barely afford to be at war in Iraq and Afganistan".
> Here's a list of the top countries in military spending by GDP - anotherwords, by percentage of the money they make:
> 
> Hey, look who isn't even on there.
> ...



Besides not posting a the source and thus not proving anything, it's only how much they relatively spend on the military, not how much they absolutely spend on the military so it's a completely irrelevant remark. You can't claim that the US doesn't have the biggest budget in the world for the military. Especially because the next thing you say is the following:



> Besides that, you also fail to understand that the American military is the ONLY military force on the entire planet that can do what it's doing currently: Waging war on the other side of the globe. Yes, it costs a ton of money. Yes, there are difficulties. But nobody else could even do it. Not without a lot of military buildup. Your own opinion of the Iraq/Afganistan wars aside - If you think for a second that Europe could do a better job of it, you're sorely mistaken. The EU is in NO WAY equivalent to the US in military capability, and saying it is is just inviting pointless discourse.



I think the EU would do an equivalent job, that is to say also quite poor but they would somehow manage. It's becoming obvious that the US needs partners in these situations more than they would like to admit, that would be the same if the EU would have done it. They wouldn't have gotten into it to begin with I think but it's besides the point. 
You know, the biggest reason why the US is having problems in the middle east is not so much the military, but a poor mandate and unrealistic goals they set for themselves. It's in the end not related to attacking and conquering at all, that part went fairly well but staying stationed is the thing that gnaws at the US.



> The US has a MASSIVE lead in weapons technology. The JSF is going to be the single most advanced fighter Europe has - yes, including the Eurofighter - and it's a joke on wings next to the F-22. The F-22 is the most famous and obvious example of cutting-edge military tech, but it's not the only one.



That's very interesting because manufacturers like Lockheed have a tendency to actually spread the manufacturing of airplanes over several countries, including in the EU, for cost effectiveness and also simply for expertise. It has happened that way with the F35, I'm not doubting it will be similar with the F22. Technology is available everywhere, don't delude yourself that it only exists in the US. 

The reason why manufacturers make them primarily in the US is because of the US government paying for them, not because they're the only ones with the technology. 
I think you're getting the cause and effect wrong on this. In other words, you don't make airplanes simply because you can, you make them because there is a market to sell them to, which is in this case the US government with their huge budget. Weapons manufacturers are in the business of making money like any other business.



> Advanced radar systems, airborne lasers, command-and-control technology - the US doesn't even THINK about selling these to anyone.
> Except Japan. Because they're a bunch of pussies anyway, need the tech, and yen are really shiny. Congress is thinking about selling them top-tier stuff, but it still hasn't been approved.



Okay. I think you're wrong about this. Also I think you're overrating the how much of an edge this would be when you get down to it.
Also the EU has the techology for sattelites but doesn't spend that much money on it.



> ...
> If you think a 50 million dollar fighter is equivalent to a 250 million dollar fighter, I'm not talking to you.



You're putting words into my mouth now. I didn't actually claim that. Nonetheless it's an interesting point, you see, five 50 millions dollar fighters are the equivalent of one 250 dollar fighter (which is the equivalent of a 100 millions euro fighter haha, I jest I jest), easily. I'm by no means an expert on fighter planes but I find it very hard to imagine 1 somewhat better airplane defeating 5 slightly less performing ones, don't you? Because this is what cost effectiveness comes down to.



> Haha, no?
> What, the heroes of the RAF are going to defeat 19 carrier battle groups and a cloud of cruise missiles that blots out the sun? Come on now.



That's not even remotely close to what I meant and you know it. The point I was making was that because of geographical situations a defending side can hold on surprisingly long against a stronger opponent.




> No, you're wrong about that, too. If Russia is included, yeah, it's a mutual leveling. But without Russia, the only means Europe has to nail the US with nukes is British submarines, maybe one or two of which could make it close enough to launch, if they're lucky. The Atlantic coast would suffer, but the majority of American cities would make it through.



Yes and France (with 400+ nukes) has no colonies in the pacific ocean, of course. How could I even think of that 

Look, the fact of the matter is, there is no such thing as a clean sweep. The US can't just steamroll a continent no matter how much you want to think it can. A total war between the EU and US would be a long one. And then the current budget and size of the army is close to irrelevant if a war would take many years, and it will come down to who can support an army the longest. 

I don't think for a second the EU would try to invade the US that would be tactically unwise, but the US would not easily get a foothold on europe either. Why do I think it's a fact that the US wouldn't have an easy win? If yuo have armies and nations of this scale, wars are not decided in a short period of time. Even an army that would be twice as big wouldn't win quickly if the other army simply is very big as well. It doesn't work in a lineair way like that, it's a little naive to think that's how the world works.

Besides if the US thinks it will be an easy victory, it will be a great blow to their morale when they find out fighting modern nations with modern armies isn't the same as neglected 3rd world nations.


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 9, 2008)

You think the US has been going all-out, kid?


----------



## BAD BD (Oct 9, 2008)

Also didn't most of the EU disarm their nukes.


----------



## BAD BD (Oct 9, 2008)

And a guerrilla war is much harder to effectively win because they usually don't follow the rules of war.


----------



## Hapayahapaya (Oct 9, 2008)

Good job with the EU trying to coordinate 12 armies at once...

When surrounded by US military bases.

Seriously, folks, the EU doesn't stand a chance.

Also, logistics. The US is very well-versed in figuring out how to move troops and supplies to far away places. The EU doesn't. Heck, most the time the EU sends troops to Iraq and Afghanistan its in US military C-130s.


----------



## zabuza666 (Oct 9, 2008)

1. US wins.
2. Whoever presses the button first wins.


----------



## TheHolyDarkness (Oct 9, 2008)

**



Kind of a big deal said:


> You're putting words into my mouth now. I didn't actually claim that. Nonetheless it's an interesting point, you see, five 50 millions dollar fighters are the equivalent of one 250 dollar fighter (which is the equivalent of a 100 millions euro fighter haha, I jest I jest), easily. I'm by no means an expert on fighter planes but I find it very hard to imagine 1 somewhat better airplane defeating 5 slightly less performing ones, don't you? Because this is what cost effectiveness comes down to.





How much do you claim to know about the F-22? I'm curious.

5 Peak Humans =/= one 800 pound Gorrilla. 


You are right. It is about cost-effectiveness in the end. And as far as air superiority is concerned, the F-22 IS that absurdly cost effective, believe it or not. o_O

I've been around too many F-22 threads to know. Not to mention having actually seen the damn thing with my own two eyes (you don't truly know the F-22 till you've been to an airshow). 

It can truly do things that old generation fighters simply *can not* do, and this especially includes aerial maneuvers incorporating its thrust vectoring and supercruise. Even if we took away the stealth and made it a close range fight, it would still maintain its designation as "5th Generation Air Superiority Fighter." O_O

With all due respect, you are simply in denial. As is everyone else who happens to be in an Airforce not of the United States.

~TheHolyDarkness Out~


----------



## TheHolyDarkness (Oct 9, 2008)

*An observation.*

You know, I've noticed a trend with this thread: Why is it that we are always talking about this in terms of the EU being on the defensive? 

Have you noticed that? Has anyone noticed that its never the EU that we're talking about taking the offensive and somehow threatening to defeat the USA? Its as if this entire time, its been an accepted reality that the EU cannot possibly win. 

Allow us to pretend the F-22 doesn't exist. Even if you were somehow to coordinate your armies and miraculously defend yourselves against our numerous other air options, all while dealing with all our multiple heavily fortified forward bases (long prep'd for intrusion in anticipation of the Russians) that will certainly be doing MORE than enough to keep you occupied while our waves of main Naval Fleets arrive and the ICBMs are retrofited, there is still no way you'd be ready to go on the offensive and try to take the fight to us. 

You are, simply put, not prepared. :sleepy
~TheHolyDarkness Out~


----------



## soupnazi235 (Oct 10, 2008)

God, Darkness, I certainly hope your military leaders aren't as fucking delusional about their capabilities as you are...


----------



## Masa (Oct 10, 2008)

TheHolyDarkness said:


> You know, I've noticed a trend with this thread: Why is it that we are always talking about this in terms of the EU being on the defensive?
> 
> Have you noticed that? Has anyone noticed that its never the EU that we're talking about taking the offensive and somehow threatening to defeat the USA? Its as if this entire time, its been an accepted reality that the EU cannot possibly win.



Thats because the EU really has no chance at staging an offence against the US, considering the EU only has 4 small to medium carriers.  Where as the US has 12, all of which are vastly superior in size, carrying capacity, range, etc. to the European ones.




> Allow us to pretend the F-22 doesn't exist. Even if you were somehow to coordinate your armies and miraculously defend yourselves against our numerous other air options, all while dealing with all our multiple heavily fortified forward bases (long prep'd for intrusion in anticipation of the Russians) that will certainly be doing MORE than enough to keep you occupied while our waves of main Naval Fleets arrive and the ICBMs are retrofited, there is still no way you'd be ready to go on the offensive and try to take the fight to us.
> 
> You are, simply put, not prepared. :sleepy
> ~TheHolyDarkness Out~



Even if the F-22 didn't exist, the US has probably double the number of fighters of all of the EU combined.  Plus cruise missiles and stealth bombers.  So eventually the EU runs out of fighters to defend against bombers (and airstrips to launch fighters) and loses to prolonged bombardment.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Oct 10, 2008)

Didn't the F22 have a cousin, the F-35? Just curious.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Oct 10, 2008)

TheHolyDarkness said:


> You know, I've noticed a trend with this thread: Why is it that we are always talking about this in terms of the EU being on the defensive?



Because in order to attack you need to have a way to get your weapons to the opposing force?

At the moment the US owns the ocean.  No ships will get through.  No planes with useful amounts of firepower will get through (rather not enough to cause sufficient damage).

Really this is just being mean to the EU.  Logistically it's impossible for them to win.


----------



## Masa (Oct 10, 2008)

Testrun said:


> Didn't the F22 have a cousin, the F-35? Just curious.



the f-35 is planned to basically be the cheap fighter that we mass produce for our main airforce and to sell to other countries, the f-22 is vastly superiorin speed, manuverability, radar, etc. and has stealth to top it off.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 10, 2008)

The reason why everyone assumes that the US would try to invade the EU is rather simple, if the EU wants to win they have to outlast the US. This only works if they let the US do all the work, supply lines will be huge and costly if they have to send their armies to the EU, and dangerous too. Whereas the EU armies wouldn't have that problem. That's an immediate advantage right there. So it's really quite logical and tactically sound that the EU wouldn't try to invade the US at first. 

Also if both sides are in-character and not bloodlusted it's reasonable to assume the US would be the agressor. The OP stated the following:



> The USA declared war on EU.
> 1) Conventional war
> 2) Nuclear War


----------



## Masa (Oct 10, 2008)

Kind of a big deal said:


> The reason why everyone assumes that the US would try to invade the EU is rather simple, if the EU wants to win they have to outlast the US. This only works if they let the US do all the work, supply lines will be huge and costly if they have to send their armies to the EU, and dangerous too. Whereas the EU armies wouldn't have that problem. That's an immediate advantage right there. So it's really quite logical and tactically sound that the EU wouldn't try to invade the US at first.
> 
> Also if both sides are in-character and not bloodlusted it's reasonable to assume the US would be the agressor. The OP stated the following:



I believe multiple people have told you this already, but the US doesn't need to send in ground troops to win this.  The US navy, and airforce is all that is needed to destroy any significant structure in Europe and send it back to the stoneage.  Thus, supply lines, and your argument, have no bearing in the debate.  If the US's goal was the occupation of Europe, then you might have a case, but that is not what this thread is about.


----------



## Kind of a big deal (Oct 10, 2008)

It doesn't really matter how many people say the same thing. An argument remains the same no matter how often it is repeated.

But I think you might be influenced a little too much by movies and popular belief. To conquer a continent you're going to eventually need a standing army on land. I'll use the Brittain vs Third Reich example again, in the first periods of the war the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of Brittain, but that doesn't exactly mean they have conquered them, now does it? No Germans on land means it's not conquered or defeated yet. There's just no way around it and the same applies to the US vs EU scenario.

Even today it's too costly and unrealistic to only need an airforce to conquer modern nations. Invading a continent is really complicated and daunting, it's much too simplistic to just claim you have to send in an airforce and drop bombs and that would be the end of it.

Since people are keen on repeating that they would just send the air force, I'll be happy to repeat my point as well (and we won't be getting anywhere), a war of that scale would be a long and costly affair that could easily take decades. The current state of both armies would then be close to irrelevant. Regardless of that I predict the US will quickly run out of money to support their army in it's current condition and it would be a tie.


----------



## Masa (Oct 10, 2008)

Kind of a big deal said:


> It doesn't really matter how many people say the same thing. An argument remains the same no matter how often it is repeated.
> 
> But I think you might be influenced a little too much by movies and popular belief. To conquer a continent you're going to eventually need a standing army on land. I'll use the Brittain vs Third Reich example again, in the first periods of the war the luftwaffe bombed the shit out of Brittain, but that doesn't exactly mean they have conquered them, now does it? No Germans on land means it's not conquered or defeated yet. There's just no way around it and the same applies to the US vs EU scenario.



I think you might be influenced a bit too much by past warfare as opposed to modern warfare.  The Germans didn't have nearly as dominant an airforce or accurate bombing capabilities as the US has to Europe.  What I am saying is that US stealth bombers can basically fly over Europe and bomb whatever target they want without ANY cost at all (well except for the bomb and gas).  cruise missiles can do the same with pin point accuracy.  and after the stealth bombers and cruise missles have taken out all radar, communications, SAMs, and airfields which realistically can happen in a few weeks at most (it happened in Iraq in, what, a day or so?) the B52s can come in and take care of what ever is left i.e. production facilities.  After a few months the EU wont be able to produce a car, much less a plane or ship capable of attacking the US.



> Even today it's too costly and unrealistic to only need an airforce to conquer modern nations. Invading a continent is really complicated and daunting, it's much too simplistic to just claim you have to send in an airforce and drop bombs and that would be the end of it.



Like I just said, the goal here is not conquering, the goal is destruction.  If the whole population of Europe is forced underground with out any means of production or attack, we might as well consider it a win for the US because the EU will surrender long before that point.  Unless your idea of a win is killing every single person in Europe.



> Since people are keen on repeating that they would just send the air force, I'll be happy to repeat my point as well (and we won't be getting anywhere), a war of that scale would be a long and costly affair that could easily take decades. The current state of both armies would then be close to irrelevant. Regardless of that I predict the US will quickly run out of money to support their army in it's current condition and it would be a tie.




Actually for the US it wouldn't be so costly, with all production and defense capabilities in Europe destroyed, the only thing the US has to actually do is blow facilities up faster than the EU can build them and that really wouldn't be so tough.  It might take its sweet time decimating the rest of Europe, but it could probably go fight somebody else once the main forces in Europe are subdued.


----------



## TheHolyDarkness (Oct 10, 2008)

*^_^*

Entire continents have been conquered before.

I think the entire point of this thread is: If the USA were some crazy Empire building nation like those back in the good ol' days, could they conquer world like the British and French before them, starting with the EU? 

The answer is yes. 

Naturally, no offense to you Europeans, since everyone realizes the folly of colonization by now (liberation and freedom works so much better). But if we WANTED to... <_<;;;

Oh yeah. We could knock you people back a few centuries. Long before you can attempt to counter attack and you know....actually win?

~TheHolyDarkness Out~


----------



## TheHolyDarkness (Oct 10, 2008)

*Yeah, I thought I was being delusional when I saw it too.*



soupnazi235 said:


> God, Darkness, I certainly hope your military leaders aren't as fucking delusional about their capabilities as you are...



My eyes doth seen the glory. 

One of the greatest *"WTFZOMGBBQ"* moments of my entire life! 

No amount of stat sheets can fully explain what that....that THING is in real life. 

~TheHolyDarkness Out~


----------

