europe and US going to war who would win

stevenmu

It's an interesting idea. Personally I think it would mainly come down to logistics, or more specifically oil and iron. The US has the ability to internally produce enough oil and iron to drive it's military (the US actually only imports something like 30% of it's oil). The EU needs to import a far larger portion of it's oil certainly, and I think iron too. Combining this with the fact that, as was mentioned already, the US has a far greater capacity to project power, the US could relativly easily cut off the supply lines into Europe. It would then become a war of attrition in which only one side could replenish it's supplies. In pure military terms I can only see one side winning.

That's military vs. military though, if it came down to staging an occupation I don't think either side could manage it, both territories are far too large, with too many able citizens who'd resist, for either army to occupy.

Capt'n Midnight

rossie1977 wrote:

Russia has a far more powerful nuclear arsenal with weapons up to 15 times the megaton yield of the USA (russia also have far more nukes, though their accuracy is alot less than those of the USA).

here is a better question could earth survive an attack from the borg

Earth / Gaia could as evidenced by the colonisation during the film.

Your stats are a little out of date. The US are the ones who refuse to disarm, having rejected many russian offers to reduce stocks on both side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons
active weapons
United States 5,735
Russia (formerly Flag of the Soviet Union Soviet Union) 5,830
United Kingdom 200
France 350
China 130
India 70-120
Pakistan 30-52
North Korea 1-10
Israel 75-200

so Europe is a tad behind in terms of nukes, but then again the guarantee of one hit on Washington is enough to stop the US launching

size of stockpile - notice how many more Nukes the US had during the Red Scare years , figures are total not just active.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/608px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png

old boy

well if some crowd from inner africa can toss the yanks out with a couple of reifels, another small place in st. america with only a few clubs can get the better of them, the only thing you can say is they cant fight, never could, never will, cowards the lot of them, when did they ever win a fight, the odd one in boxing perhaps, (forgive the spelling it like the yanks fighting)

Pepe LeFrits

America would win. They have this man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq2_YKQGE_U

tj-music.com

roughan wrote:

say if europe and US went to war who would win?

Whoever is left in the end obviously.

O.K., seriously - I think that there would be little left for anyone to enjoy their lives on either side

faceman

China ftw

Mahatma coat

Hmm, 8 Pages, thats enough of a threat that we should be considerin a preemptive strike on the yanks.

Seriously tho if We coordinated with the Canadians and the Mexicans we could probably take the 48 states, leave Alaska for the Rusians and the Japanese can have another go at Pearl harbour. all we'd have to do in Europe is strike at the American bases dotted round the place swiftly and decisevly.

other questions arise tho, like Africa, do we ally ourselves with strategic african nations for their resoursces or do we occupy them and just steal it much like the American method of Liberation.

and of coursae if Nukes are used in the Norhtern Hemisphere the Australia Wins

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote:

WOLVERINES!!!!

Hehehehe:D


I dont know why i keep coming back to read this,
There are entire forums just for this,
Theres always someone telling us how <insert country> would have no problem attacking <insert country 2> and taking it over in less than a week because in <insert film/Andy McNabb etc.> thats what happened.
<country 1> has <Tactical/Operation/Strategic> advantage because they have webbing made of <technology from Discovery channel program> and <secret special forces unit> know how to take out the entire of the enemies defences with a sock and an 8-ball.
And dont forget the <insert armoured vehicle name> has a fatal weakness in the armour around the mount for the drivers cup holder

wyk

Paddy has WAY too much time on his hands.

Let me try and make some sense of it:

1) We do not "hate Europe". Most Americans LOVE Europe - we just don't know where it is exactly, and none of us speak European.

2) I just paid $24 for a halfway decent bottle of French Bordeaux Haute Medoc, and even if they capitulate, we both know the war would make that bottle far more expensive(just look at the price of oil now). So this is at least one 'yank'(Don't ever call a southerner a yank to his face) against the idea. In fact, last election I voted against it, and Europe is STILL there? See? Or is it? I'm just assuming because my map doesn't say "Europe" on it, but you're talking about this like it hasn't happened yet...

3) Whether Ireland is neutral or not is immaterial. When soldiers arrive on your shores and ask you if you speak English, just say "Yes", and they'll move on until they run into someone that doesn't, then they'll start shooting. This is how we have waged war for an entire century, and such a good system isn't likely to change any time soon. And for the love of God, don't be so on the piss slobbering sloppy drunk that they think yer speaking a 'foreign' language. I.E. - do NOT respond with anything like "Air yis takin the piss?! Yis kin stuff ye bangstick up ye arse, and don git me no guff, ya bloody moorcan!" As they would shoot you right then and there, ya dirty Kraut!

4) Once US soldiers start shooting, it is still a good idea to leave the area and seek refuge in a bomb shelter - the deeper the better. We still consider 10-90% friendly fire casualties to be 'within normal operating parameters'...so long as it isn't our own troops. And even then, it only matters if they were football stars. It won't make the news in the US, so it really didn't ever happen, did it now?

5) The US is living proof that when you have a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. Only we've built the hammer big enough to strike home masonry screws, flat head bolts, square widgets into round holes, and we play a mean game of Whack-A-Mole. So try very hard not to look like a mole or a square peg. And do yourselves a favor, and don't wear a beret, either. The troops will think you're French and start shooting, 'smart' bombing(tm), or 'surging'. That is, until you point out the fact that THEY ALSO have berets on. At which point see #4.

And Finally #6) One word - "Strategery" Fear it! Er...(I just had to turn off my spell-checker for that line, BTW)

Y'all take care now.

Wez
Austin, TX...for now...

nice1franko

stupid yank

faceman

wyk wrote:

3) Whether Ireland is neutral or not is immaterial. When soldiers arrive on your shores and ask you if you speak English, just say "Yes", and they'll move on until they run into someone that doesn't, then they'll start shooting. T

God help the TG4 offices!

The_Conductor

nice1franko wrote:

stupid yank

One of the more enlightened ones actually......
You can't tar everyone with the same brush.

Tar.Aldarion

Terry wrote:

I out geeked Tar.
Sweet.

When the hell did that happen!

Manic Moran

kowloon wrote:

And dont forget the <insert armoured vehicle name> has a fatal weakness in the armour around the mount for the drivers cup holder

Hah! We're fine, so. My tank has no driver's cupholder. Which, now I think of it, is a bit strange for an American vehicle.

NTM

Capt'n Midnight

Mahatma coat wrote:

Seriously tho if We coordinated with the Canadians and the Mexicans we could probably take the 48 states, leave Alaska for the Rusians

The russians sold alaska to the US, otherwise it would probably be a "white russian" state - like the Korea's or Vietnam's

Anyway I don't think the Canadians would be interested, they have already invaded the US and burnt down Washington DC so they don't need to prove anything.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Anyway I don't think the Canadians would be interested, they have already invaded the US and burnt down Washington DC so they don't need to prove anything.

lol, yeah. I came across that fact a bit when I was living over there.

wyk

Obliged for the vote of confidence, Shane. I feel I may have been more subtle than I intended. It was more a critical commentary on the way of things US, than the prowess of the US military.

The US military budget is huge, tho. And people have a right to fear the US. Bush has shown that the US can go full throttle with little to no evidence to back it up, and with out caution or care for other countries and the UN, and France especially.

Now to return to my freedom fries, with a side of Foie Gras and a nice Bordeaux...

Wez

smccarrick wrote:

One of the more enlightened ones actually......
You can't tar everyone with the same brush.

wyk

Mordeth wrote:

lol, yeah. I came across that fact a bit when I was living over there.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Originally Posted by Capt'n Midnight
Anyway I don't think the Canadians would be interested, they have already invaded the US and burnt down Washington DC so they don't need to prove anything.

There's plenty of Americans that wouldn't mind pulling a Guy Faulkes on Washington DC at the moment. Only problem is most 'mercans have no idea who Guy Faulkes actually was, and they are too politically correct to use the term "Timothy McVeigh"...thus Washington DC still stands...

Wez

Lirange

Er ... Guy Fawkes?

McVeigh? You're not related to Esteban Cambias are you?

Manic Moran

Well, the Huffington Post today had an opinion piece suggesting that Gen. Pace conduct a miltiary coup. Can't say I agree with it myself, we're still having elections on schedule.

NTM

The_Conductor

Heres an even better proposal that the OPs- If the US military held a coup- would the Europeans support the US military?

At the moment- its almost a case of get rid of the current administration at any cost. Their latest craziest scheme was they gave the go ahead to blasting the tops off mountains to get at coal deposits during the week. Nice write up on it in New Scientist.

Essentially the current administration don't give a damn about environmentalism of any nature, prudent government expenditure, concensus with third countries when dealing with foreign matters, social policies of any nature, properly equiping their own army, truthfullness...... Bush is the anthesis of responsibility- and not only are the vast majority of his actions irresponsible, he refuses to acknowledge the stupidity of his actions and tries to draw ridiculous analogies with historical events to keep people on his side.

From a European perspective- the craziest thing about Bush is that even with the US being the worlds largest "democracy"- Bush is in office despite the fact that the majority of US citizens who bothered to vote, actually voted for a different candidate........ It doesn't exactly put him in a strong position to preach democratic morales to the leaders of third countries who come on his radar.........

So- how about a coup, followed by a reform of the college voting system, followed by a severe dilution of executive powers- perhaps to the benefit of the House committees? Mind you the last time the House Committees got a sniff of power they went on witch hunts........ I give up.......

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote:

Hah! We're fine, so. My tank has no driver's cupholder. Which, now I think of it, is a bit strange for an American vehicle.

NTM

Of course, you dont have clearance for the M-1b Tactical Beverage holder, forget i said anything.
There is no Cup Holder.
Carry on Cpt.

Manic Moran

Bush is in office despite the fact that the majority of US citizens who bothered to vote, actually voted for a different candidate

Remind me, what proportion of Irish voters voted for Bertie's party?

Of course, you dont have clearance for the M-1b Tactical Beverage holder, forget i said anything

Aha, but I have one for myself in the TC's position. (It's just to the right of the TC's arm-rest, and behind the BFT screen). Driver's not cleared for one, though. Obviously being such a junior rank, the driver is not considered capable of the responsibility that the safe operation of a driver's cupholder requires.

NTM

Dar

Manic Moran wrote:

Remind me, what proportion of Irish voters voted for Bertie's party?

41% with 13 registered parties in the election.

Bush couldn't get a majority with only TWO candidates. You do the math.

SimpleSam06

wyk wrote:

And people have a right to fear the US. Bush has shown that the US can go full throttle with little to no evidence to back it up

Actually Bush has shown that Bush can go full throttle with little or no evidence to back it up. Saddam Hussein tried to have his father assasinated, which for my money is 90% of the entire reason for the invasion right there. Which is about as nucking futs for the "responsible" leader of a continent as you are likely to get. The funniest part is, if he explained it like that, he'd probably get most Americans to agree with him.

smccarrick wrote:

So- how about a coup, followed by a reform of the college voting system, followed by a severe dilution of executive powers- perhaps to the benefit of the House committees? Mind you the last time the House Committees got a sniff of power they went on witch hunts........ I give up.......

To be honest, despite all the chest beating and wailing / gnashing of teeth you hear from the Republican and Democratic camps, things aren't really that bad over there on the ground level. Individual decisions made by the administration are highlighted and held up as examples of unworthiness, but its the same with every US administration (blowjobs anyone?). The day to day lives of the average US citizen have been largely unaffected.

In order for a coup to go ahead you would need some truly exotic circumstances, such as proof that 9-11 was set up and executed by the President, backed up by the majority of Congress and with the assistance of various military leaders. The US military is the supreme fighting force on the planet at the moment, but it's held in check by a superb combination of patriotic disciplinary brainwashing and structural organisation. It is completely subordinate to the will of the people, in as much as the current US rulers represent that will. Also there are other mechanisms in place to deal with malfeasance on that scale.

Anything which would cause a schism in the US military would have to be astonishingly persuasive, and probably something which would represent a clear and present danger to the coherence of the US as a political body while at the same time being something the majority of troops could support to the extent that they would turn against their own country. In other words, unlikely.

Of far greater concern would be the apparent growth of fundamentalism groups over there, who started off originally in the democratic camp back in the 20s and 30s, before Nixon decided to win them over. Since then they have been a decidedly republican support base, and of growing importance. In fact, no president could get elected now without showing strong faith in one or another christian denomination.

The problem is of course, with such rising lunacy, if you can lead people to that particular trough and make them drink from it, you can feed them any old shite and call it gospel.

Mal Reynolds wrote:

Nothing worse than a monster who thinks he's right with God.

There has been something rotten in the US for far longer than Bush has been around, and to be honest, the idea of combining it with fundamentalist religions is far more terrifying than anything I've seen over there to date... I'll let Smedley Butler take the floor:

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye," was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and, at the time of his death, the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

Butler was awarded the brevet medal (the highest Marine medal at its time), and subsequently the Medal of Honor twice during his career, one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor. During the Battle of Tientsin on July 13, 1900, Butler climbed out of a trench to retrieve a wounded officer for medical attention, whereupon he was shot in the thigh. Another Marine helped the wounded Butler to safety but was himself shot; Butler continued to assist the first man to the rear. Butler was also shot in the chest at San Tan Pating.

-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Replace a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism with a "Big Boss" Grassroots Fundamentalism, and you have a recipe for trouble on a scale unseen before.

Capt'n Midnight

smccarrick wrote:

the craziest thing about Bush is that even with the US being the worlds largest "democracy"- Bush is in office despite the fact that the majority of US citizens who bothered to vote, actually voted for a different candidate........ It doesn't exactly put him in a strong position to preach democratic morales to the leaders of third countries who come on his radar.........

So- how about a coup, followed by a reform of the college voting system, followed by a severe dilution of executive powers- perhaps to the benefit of the House committees? Mind you the last time the House Committees got a sniff of power they went on witch hunts........ I give up.......

<cough> India </cough>

From our point of view what is the difference between the Democrats and Republicans ? Both are far right parties.

Dilution of executive powers ? Regan invaded Grenada illegally.
unless the checks and balances are working and seen to be working then the President can get away with (mass) murder.

Terry

SimpleSam06 wrote:

Actually Bush has shown that Bush can go full throttle with little or no evidence to back it up. Saddam Hussein tried to have his father assasinated, which for my money is 90% of the entire reason for the invasion right there. Which is about as nucking futs for the "responsible" leader of a continent as you are likely to get. The funniest part is, if he explained it like that, he'd probably get most Americans to agree with him.

That "He tried to kill my daddy" excuse is the lamest one ever.
People seem to quickly forget that his daddy also tried to kill Saddam.

You're the leader of a country and are invaded. What are you going to do?
I know Hussein was wrong for invading Kuwait, but that's not the point here.

SimpleSam06

Terry wrote:

That "He tried to kill my daddy" excuse is the lamest one ever.
People seem to quickly forget that his daddy also tried to kill Saddam.

Mid to long term memory is not what I would call one of the defining characteristics of the US population. Unless you are talking about world war 2, then its all, "we saved your asses, so you have to support us while we bollocks up the middle east even more than it already is, which would take some doing, but we're managing it".

axer

Europe vs USA?

Ireland would be neutral alright but the yanks would be using Shannon to launch B52s on bombing missions across europe!

Europe has 700+ million inhabitants while the USA has 300+ million.

The USA would have to concentrate on attacking Europe but at the same time they would be getting bombarded with attacks in the countries they occupy and also from terrorists using the opportunity to open the gates of hell on US soil. These attacks would distract the USA so Europe could kick them in the balls!

Europe 1 USA 0

faceman

if the war had started for real at the start of the thread, it would have been well over by now!

wyk

Ahh, so that's the bloke sat next to me at O'briens the other day, then. I was wondering what he was on about...sumfin musta stuck.


Wez

Lirange wrote:

Er ... Guy Fawkes?

McVeigh? You're not related to Esteban Cambias are you?

angelsfire

If a war broke out between the US and Europe...there would be no winner. War brings no winners. Just losers. War isn't good no matter what country you live in. And thinking of more war out there in the world makes me shudder. Isn't the war going on in Iraq enough for now. Let's bring those brave men and women home before we start talking about more war!!

(Mother of Soldier in Iraq)

Parsley

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Anyway I don't think the Canadians would be interested, they have already invaded the US and burnt down Washington DC so they don't need to prove anything.

Was that not the British?

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

The_Conductor

Parsley wrote:

Was that not the British?

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

I think that wiki article needs to be re-editted.
Canada is definitely the only country who ever managed to successfully invade the US (and burn large parts of its capital to the ground). Canada successfully fought off an invasion attempt by General Hull in the war of 1812, and Canadian forces under the command of Commander Ross, in 1814 occuppied and destroyed much of Washington DC. While their commander was English- the troops under his command were wholly Canadian, were thrilled at the prospect of revenge (General Hull had sacked and burnt Toronto 18 months previously at the battle of York).

S.

Manic Moran

Dar wrote:

Bush couldn't get a majority with only TWO candidates. You do the math.

That's odd. I just know my ballot sheet had more than two Presidential candidates on it. Indeed, there were at least six registered parties.

Besides, in 2004, Bush got 50.7% of the vote.

NTM

Terry

You know damn well that there are only ever two viable candidates.
One from the republican party and one from the democrats.
Anyone else is viewed by the majority as a wasted vote.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Ralph Nader 08!

Capt'n Midnight

Manic Moran wrote:

Besides, in 2004, Bush got 50.7% of the vote.

impressive when you realise just how much of the voting is still done without diebold machines

anyway if we wanted to take over the US, we would just buy the president and other politicians and best of all due to subsidies we could do it with money from the US treasury

eoin5

I think these guys would beat the crap outta these guys

Acid_Violet

Europe cos the rest of the world (bar Israel, possibly Australia and possibly some other places which don't come to mind) would be backing us!

kowloon

eoin5 wrote:

I think these guys would beat the crap outta these guys

That post started off a mini wiki-hunt that resulted in this gem:

The UK version of the single had to be put back due to a printing error on the sleeve, which missed out an 'o' to read The Final Cuntdown.

wyk

Isn't that what this entire thread was all about?


Wez

kowloon wrote:

That post started off a mini wiki-hunt that resulted in this gem:


The UK version of the single had to be put back due to a printing error on the sleeve, which missed out an 'o' to read The Final Cuntdown.

Rossibaby

europe,firstly we have great guerilla war abilities even in this country!then we have countries like england and russia,we'd win

kowloon

I should have resisted the urge, now im going to have that theme in my head for the rest of the month.
Maybe if i find its antithesis, the theme from grandstand, theyll cancel each other out.

wyk

This is one of the reason invading the US might be bad policy:


By Laura MacInnis Tue Aug 28, 1:25 PM ET

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.
ADVERTISEMENT

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

It's actually one of the reasons I've left. The gun violence in that country is just ridiculous.

Wez

Reku

Another reason why Europe would win: if the US tried to bomb/nuke/invade most of their ordinance/troops would end up elsewhere as most of them can't find Europe on the map.:D

inspiron77

i think Europe will win..my 2cents..

BrotherTotz

Given that no one else would ever side with America and that they could be up against some sort of super army force:

Organised with German efficiency
Supported by the sheer number mass of Russia
With Swiss financial management/timekeeping
With British military training
With Turkish determination/fanatics (one of the largest armies in the world btw!)
That would always look good and be well presented (Italians)
Kept fed and nourished with French food
And aye yea the Irish there...for the craic (morale)...did dilly aye..potatoes whoop!! *starts clapping and dancing*

As well as the confidence/aloofness of the French and Brits all rolled into one!!!

Ahhhhhh stereotypes....

Not a chance them yanks would have...after they realise Europe isnt part of Alaska

Actually…Vietnam...Afghanistan...Iraq…...not really on the best run a form now on that side a things are they?

Dub13

Terry wrote:

You know damn well that there are only ever two viable candidates.

You could say the same about our election.

Terry

Not really.
I vote Labour and my local TD was re-elected.