Europe Vs Usa Who Would Win ?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:16 AM
link   
It would be a 60/40 in favour of the europeans, if they ever decided to work together.

If you go through numbers then europe has america by a healthy margin and that goes for planes, tanks, ships etc.

Everyone knows those carrier groups are just for projection of power against the poor, i seriously doubt their ability to stand up to a massed attack of eurofighters, tornado's and rafale's.

The true factor is the choice you make in your strategy... defend or attack. If europe were to invade i think we'd get a hefty whuppin, and if america invaded they would be so tied up in the landscape and tactics that they would be stopped close from their landing points.

The real deciding factor is the UK, the unsinkable aircraft carrier




posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Jeffery,
Russia is so backwards that they put there clothes on that way. Russia can't compare to the US's technology, get with it man!

I'd bet GB would side with the US, they have more in common and the US is their rebellious child.

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Cearbhall]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by GriBiT
NOT a laughing matter. Tacky


It's a laughing matter when a country can be hit like that but always posed to be the absolute superpower on earth which is unattackable.
Not laughing about the victims.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 08:35 AM
link   
The real question is why would The United States or Europe as a whole want to destroy the other?

The more likely scenario is USA and Europe fighting together against the likes of China and Russia.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 09:00 AM
link   
In the end, we'd all lose....of course...

But, the arguement of Russia's numbers of nukes isn't really solid. For one, they're aging. Second, they weren't as accurate to begin with....so it'd take more launched to have a prayer of actually getting to their target. Finally, whether you believe it or not...there IS an anti-missile defense system in place in the US.

The arguement of China and numbers is likewise bogus. Numbers mean little in modern warfare...simply look at the recent Middle Eastern battles to see this... Tech is everything, as is training. On both issues, the US has a decided advantage.

Still, such a confrontation would be no cakewalk for either side, with or without nukes....and in the end...we'd ALL be the losers.....



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
In the end, we'd all lose....of course...
Finally, whether you believe it or not...there IS an anti-missile defense system in place in the US.


that comment made me laugh, what a load of crap your missle defence is, it shot down a british plane in iraq!!!
your missle defence systems would probably take down your planes before they even left the ground



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The comment that says we couldnt defend against the terror attacks on 9/11 is STUPID...that was not an act of war...that was an act of evil that if perpetrated against ANY other country would have gone down the same way
EXCEPT some other country would have been on our doorstep begging for the generosity America is well known for,...go ahead think you can whip the US...its been thought before..



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kormy

Umm, that i s a lie. Europe could defend as good as you jenks could.

And dont bring me .... of the World War 2, its history


A lie ? Man, I served in an european army and when I see what european nations are doing ( or not doing, it's uo to you
) for their military security, I LAUGH.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 10:52 AM
link   
Let's hope it doesn't come to that!



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Well to be honest if there was a war i think USA would have to start it as i think the UN leaders are cowards (Not the people) no offence to any one in the UN but they seem to always try talking everthing out and on th front they dont agree with things but are quick to exploit what they dont agree with regardless (e.g a war)

I would ally with USA as they are one of our younger bros that are actualy in "agreement/on the friendlier side" with us

Im UK

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Crash]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:20 AM
link   


that comment made me laugh, what a load of crap your missle defence is, it shot down a british plane in iraq!!!


lol, i agree, USA's 'friendly' fire is legendary.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by baked
It's the weapons that we don't know about that would decide the war.

Aside from nukes, what weapons would be unleashed apon the world?

Honestly, I think everyone would end up loosing, including the ones that chose to stay nuteral.

A rather large chunk of America is either from Europe and still have family there or are from there and have ties there. This also means that alot of Europeans have American family here. If it did happen, it would most likely not be the whole of Europe that would fight. Probably not the whole of America either. I guess it would have to take something MAJOR to spark that one.
Just my opinion on it.
BAKED

Brilliantly put. I'm in America, but my Father lives in Europe. He's a European citizen. He's lived on 3 continents. I'm American, but I see my roots as being deeper, more international. Many people I know are one generation away from relatives in another Country. I have family in Hungary, France and America. If we're truly a global economy, we need trade policies that allow nations to combine strengths and provide for their basic needs. That's what I learned America is about...but it shouldn't stop where the waterline starts. The priviledged need to lend a hand in these tough times. Everybody needs to calm the hell down, put down the weapons, have some meetings, lose the egos and co-exist...hell, lose a profit but gain a partner.
Don't make the U.S. and you an "Us/Them" situation. The US President and Administration don't always represent the people as accurately.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
America is now known as the world's first and only Mega Power - at least thats how it was categorized on the front page of a time article a couple months ago. America could wipe out the whole planet if it chose to do so - and it could do that without nukes. It has other weapons which can wipe out whole sections of cities. Not a whole city like a nuke could, but throw down a couple of its largest Petrolium based bombs and you could roast marshmallows on the city they ruin.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Layers of ice, water or not, U.S.A. would destroy Europa.... what? oh, you said Europe?

Oops, my bad!


[Edited on 27-1-2004 by DiabolusKlown]



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ragingsystem
I agree, europe just has a smaller army but as good as defence as America, oh and maybe even better, i mean how da hell to you allow a plane to fly low into new york city. Thats bad defence.



It may be bad defence but not every country is tight enought to watch every corner 24/7 for incoming hijacked commercial jets with many frieghtend passengers. Not to mention america has always been the target for terrioristic attacks. And you couldn't say europe has a better defence because the u.s has BETTER defence.



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cearbhall
Jeffery,
Russia is so backwards that they put there clothes on that way. Russia can't compare to the US's technology, get with it man!

I'd bet GB would side with the US, they have more in common and the US is their rebellious child.

[Edited on 1-27-2004 by Cearbhall]



Well, GB is part of NATO along with many others in europe as well. True they may not have better tech. BUT they may be farther along in nuclear weaponry. I see what your sayin.

~DEFENSOR FORTIS!~



posted on Jan, 27 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   
about nukes: I read somewhere that if you set a nuke off underwater you'd devour the planet in an all consuming catratrophe. The logic goes like this: Nukes work by spliting Oxygen, which releases a lot of energy. So if you put a nuke under water there would a practically unlimited amount of H20, Oxygen, to split. Can someone refute or verify this?



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ktprktpr
about nukes: I read somewhere that if you set a nuke off underwater you'd devour the planet in an all consuming catratrophe. The logic goes like this: Nukes work by spliting Oxygen, which releases a lot of energy. So if you put a nuke under water there would a practically unlimited amount of H20, Oxygen, to split. Can someone refute or verify this?


I'm not sure of the accuracy of any of this but check this out:



The visible phenomena of explosion followed the predictions made by civilian and service phenomenologists attached to Joint Task Force One. At the moment of explosion, a dome, which showed the light of incandescent material within, rose upon the surface of the lagoon. The blast was followed by an opaque cloud, which rapidly enveloped about half of the target array. The cloud vanished in about two seconds to reveal, as predicted, a column of ascending water. From some of the photographs it appears that this column lifted the 26,000-ton battleship ARKANSAS for a brief interval before the vessel plunged to the bottom of the lagoon. Confirmation of this occurrence must await the analysis of high-speed photographs, which are not yet available. The diameter of the column of water was about 2200 feet, and it rose to a height of about 5500 feet. Spray rose to a much greater height. The column contained roughly ten million tons of water. For several minutes after the column reached maximum height, water fell back, forming an expanding cloud of spray, which engulfed about half of the target array. Surrounding the base of the column was a wall of foaming water several hundred feet high. Waves outside the water column, about 1000 feet from the center of explosion, were 80 to 100 feet in height. These waves rapidly diminished in size as they proceeded outward, the highest wave reaching the beach of Bikini Island being seven feet. Waves did not pass over the island, and no material damage occurred there. Measurements of the underwater shock wave are not yet available. There were no seismic phenomena of significant magnitude. The explosion produced intense radioactivity in the waters of the lagoon. Radioactivity immediately after the burst is estimated to have been the equivalent of many hundred tons of radium. A few minutes exposure to this intense radiation at its peak would, within a brief interval, have incapacitated human beings and have resulted in their death within days or weeks.the second bomb, bursting under water, sank a battleship immediately at a distance of well over 500 feet. It damaged an aircraft carrier so that it sank in a few hours, while another battleship sank after five days. In the case of the underwater explosion, the airburst wave was far less intense and there was no heat wave of significance. Moreover, because of the absorption of neutrons and gamma rays by water, the lethal quality of the first flash of radiation was not of high order. But the second bomb threw large masses of highly radioactive water onto the decks and into the hulls of vessels. These contaminated ships became radioactive stoves, and would have burned all living things aboard them with invisible and painless but deadly radiation.
nuclearhistory.tripod.com...



Assuming that its stated in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, that it had been done before.




A ban on nuclear testing is the oldest item on the current arms control agenda. Efforts to curtail nuclear tests have been made since the 1940s. In the 1950s, the United States and Soviet Union conducted hundreds of tests of newly developed hydrogen bombs. The radioactive fallout from these tests spurred public protest around the world. These pressures, reinforced by a desire to reduce U.S.-Soviet confrontation in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, led to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963, which banned nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, in space, and under water.
www.fas.org...








A view from the rim of Moruroa atoll into the central lagoon.
The blast from the nuclear test explosion has raised a dome of water, and turned the surface white - not from heat, but from the shock wave driving out air bubbles.

Insufficient monitoring means that little is known about the potential effects of nuclear testing on nearby island populations



www.oneworld.org...





A number of near-surface nuclear blasts were carried out in the shallow waters (< 60 m) of the Bay of
Chernaya (Novaya Zemlya) in the late 50s and early 60s. Data is available from three of these explosions.
The first underwater nuclear blast (October 10, 1957) was reported with yield of 10 kt and charge depth of
30 m. Seven peak-pressure measurements are available from this explosion, which average about 300
kg/cm2 at a 235-m distance and sensor depths 10 to 50 m. Hydrophone records from the two other nuclear
blasts (October 23 and 27, 1961) are available at much larger distances, 35 km to 160 km, at sensor depths
of 1 m above the bottom. These records show levels of sound pressure measured in three different bands
from low to high frequencies. The records from the first of these nuclear explosions, of yield 4.8 kt and
charge depth 20 m, indicate peak levels of sound pressure between 103 dB and 125 dB. The records from
the second 1961 nuclear explosion, of 16-kt yield and height above water 1.1 m, show levels between 90
dB and 130 dB, with the pressure of the direct shock wave being diminished to ~4% of the pressure that
would have been observed in boundless water. Distinct arrivals are seen for both 1961 blasts, such as direct
shock waves in water (T-phase), refractions in the crust and the bottom layers, and signals corresponding to
sound speed of shock waves in air.
www.ctbt.rnd.doe.gov...


Kept wonder while searching this stuff, which govt. computers my IP was being sent to. Oh well, what can ya do? Patriot Act HELL YEAH! (sarcasam)



posted on Jan, 28 2004 @ 11:15 AM
link   
This view would probably seen by many around the world:
Here is a water shot:






Here is an interesting surface blast


This one is just horrifying (sp?)













How about this one huh? Weird!






Anyway, how about LETS NOT FIGHT! OK! To see it in pictures is good enough. First person would not be fun



posted on Jan, 29 2004 @ 01:29 AM
link   
I would simply say the United States, due to the fact that the weapons and technology we have are at least Two-Decades ahead of what the public knows. I once heard a General state that if you really had knowledge of what the U.S. posseses, it would be straight out of the Star Wars Movies.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join