Europe Vs Usa Who Would Win ?

So if I've got this right...Europe would win because we've been in more wars, so we're more adept at fighting them. Europe would win because the CHINESE would ally itself to oppose the USA. Russia would join in just to thumb their nose across the pond. Austrailia would what? Stay neutral I hope - as it would be embarrasing otherwise. France..? They'd be in London over night with their hands up asking for assylum. Germany would probably declare themselves neutral just to spite the Brits. F*�$ It! Scotland and Wales would probably side with the USA anyway... You'd end up with Africa and the Middle East with the deciding votes. Can't be arsed to go into THOSE implications. Still, patriotism is strong in my family - COME ON ENGLAND!!

I would first take England by storm by dropping toothpaste, tooth brushes, and dental floss.

Again, Europe, an entire continent, vs USA, a country. Hhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! It takes an entire continent to take on USA? You people are sad, I guess that is why we are a mega power, and you are not. Why not US vs England? Or US vs Mexico? No, cause USA would win hands down. But an entire continent? Well, then maybe USA would lose. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! you people are sad, needing an entire continent to take on the USA. And the person that said Europe would win since they've been in more wars? Everytime England went to war with US, they lost. When Europe has gone to war in the past 100 years, the USA always comes in and cleans up the mess. Sorry, but again, it is sad you people need to say an entire continent against US, who would win?

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Lysergic]

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Again, Europe, an entire continent, vs USA, a country. Hhahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! It takes an entire continent to take on USA? You people are sad, I guess that is why we are a mega power, and you are not. Why not US vs England? Or US vs Mexico? No, cause USA would win hands down. But an entire continent? Well, then maybe USA would lose. HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

you people are sad, needing an entire continent to take on the USA. And the person that said Europe would win since they've been in more wars? Everytime England went to war with US, they lost. When Europe has gone to war in the past 100 years, the USA always comes in and cleans up the mess. Sorry, but again, it is sad you people need to say an entire continent against US, who would win?

heres what we can do. take on each contry one at a time. france would be a push over. finland and germany and britian will be a channelge though. RAF and the Luftwaffe are pretty skilled

I think that Europe and especially France cannot not be said to be easy push overs. France most probaly have the best Navy in the world while Britain and germany the best airforces. Also countries joining the Eu such as Poland and Hungary also have respectible armys.

The US would roll Europe like a cheap cigar!!!

Is anyone reading this right? A country, USA, vs a continent, Europe. It would be like Ok, Africa vs Australia, who would win? Well, Australia would, but that's besides the point.

If the European Union went to war with America you would probably see the European Union winning although neither Nation would be able to fight the War on land it would be mostly confucted in the Air and at Sea due to the fact a modern "landing" in Europe or America would be unthinkable (due to technology) without one of the neighbouring nations giving access and although Canada and Mexico have strong ties to Europe I doubt it would happen.

However, the main reason I think the European Union would win is down to the simple fact America has taken the role of "World Police" and they at present have troops in South Korea and Iraq to name just a few places. If they were to go against the E.U. they would need all of these troops pulled back and maybe even a draft - where as some European Nations still have the draft which gives them an advantage. Also once you see a pull out in the Middle East and Asia, with South Korea and Israel no longer protected you would likely see a counter attack by Nations such as Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc, to get rid of America in those areas of the World. This would cause massive amounts of damage to America and the only way they could really win would be to go Nuclear and then that's the end of us all.

The real wild cards are China and Russia, I think China would attempt to invade their neighbours, it's common knowledge America has bases all around china and the chinese hate this fact so you might see these bases "vanish" under the Dragon. Russia also might attempt to gain back its glory days and couple with the E.U. or just help them with resources such as oil, etc, another major factor is the fact Europe has done less to "annoy" the middle east then America has and you could see those "Muslim Finatics" side with the European Union as well as the "oil" going with them.

Europe won't fair too well because since there is like what ... many nations together and those nations don't agree with each other that much... + if the whoel of europe invade the US... well, keep dreaming, there will be 300 million with shotguns and you guys going to have a hell of a gurrera war... it would mainly be sea and air battles not land... and to even get to the US, you have to sink 13 carrier battle groups and lots of other little ships..

and like someone said
a whole continent aganist one country!!! thats not fair! and if europe loses assuming no nukes it would be really sad... really

Originally posted by ulshadow
and like someone said
a whole continent aganist one country!!! thats not fair! and if europe loses assuming no nukes it would be really sad... really

There is no difference between the United States of America and the European Union once it is fully brought into power.

If one STATE of America decided to "vote" to stay or not and they voted against it they could leave the FEDERAL system of Government. How hard is this to understand?

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Again, Europe, an entire continent, vs USA, a country.

Probably you didnt think of the relativities... Of course a single country of Europe couldnt act against the USA, because you have a population of 300 million people (and the resulting large economy, combined with a gigantic and resourceful soil). The most populated country in Europe is Germany with 80 million people. This is not sad, this is a matter of fact. And because of these facts this thread is about Europe vs. USA, it indeed takes a whole continent to face another (nearly) whole continent, how much countries these continents consist of is of secondary importance.

Ok, Lets assume that A. this war will only be fought between common European countries and USA without any other allies on every side; B. that no nukes would be used, because then both sides will have disastrous losses. The so-called secret weapons will only have a marginal effect if any at all because in a massive conflict like this the sheer number of equipment is the decisive factor (bearing comparable training on both sides in mind).

If Europe was to invade the US then it would take a long time to even get there (you know, theres a huge navy in the way...), and even then it is unsure whether any significant ground can be taken within the US. There is a lot of land-based defense systems that would stand a long time against any invasion, and even then the country is not occupyable because the american population will be armed to the teeth by then. Result: massive genocide, levelling of the cities.

If USA was to invade Europe they would have to launch carrier based attacks. Any attacks launched from european or asian bases will be quickly stopped by destroying those fragile encampments. The problem for the carrier groups is that if they come close to european shores they will have a hard time against the submarine fleet. These would not attack directly but rather the supply routes. That way the carrier aircrafst would have to limit their fuel and ammunition need. Europe again has rather secure airbases very far back in the mainland from where they can launch counter-attacks and defensive CAPs. The problem of Europe would be the dense population, meaning that every succesful bomb raid by US Aircraft would have a severe impact on structures AND population.

Then again, what we wouldnt see would be massive bombardments of B52s, they would be shot down like flies. B2s would also stand no chance against a tight air defense, stealthy or not, they ARE detectable and can only be launched far away, reducing the bombload and thus effectiveness.

IF it comes to a land.based invasion then it would be a bit easier for the troops to advance than the other way round since europe isnt as heavily armed, especially to the west. But sooner or later they would face the joker of individual countries troops: they are used to the specific landscape of their country, they have standing and short supply lines, there are plenty sources for oil within europe. I dont think the US troops would come very far.

Bottom line: Invasion of the USA IS possible, but with no gain to the invading countries since most of the infrastructure AND the people would have to be destroyed. Invasion of Europe is impossible because of the limitations of supply lines for the US troops.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by KiwiGael
The leading nation of the EU war-machine will be the German Govt', and throughout history we see that Germany pulls no punches when it comes to a fight - anybody heard of 'blitzkrieg' and 'total war'? I expect a Hitler type leader emerging out of the woodwork within the next 10 years.

Severe lack of imagination on your part I guess.... why do so many think it would be the same again and again?!?

Originally posted by KiwiGael
The Brits, and Aussies will aid the US . There's still a lotta animosity between the German Govt' and UK/USA. There's still many active and influential neo-nazis who pose a real threat.

a. We´re talking about Europe and not Europe minus UK.

b. The animosity between Germany and the "coalition of the willing" is only superficial and is kept alive by the populistic voices in these countries. After all, Germany reacted EXACTLY how it was supposed to according to its consitution (which was written under supervision and influence of the USA). This constitution defines the german army as being strictly defensive, and only to be employed abroad as a peace-keeping force within a general UN resolution.

c. No european neo-nazistic group has any significant influence nowadays. What you say is not true.

Originally posted by KiwiGael
If such a global war does occur, it'll ignite in the middle east - I suggest keeping a close eye on the activities in that region, especially those involving the EU and its pseudo-religious/political ally, aka the Vatican...

Please explain to me what military significance the Vatican has...

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24
Probably you didnt think of the relativities... Of course a single country of Europe couldnt act against the USA, because you have a population of 300 million people (and the resulting large economy, combined with a gigantic and resourceful soil). The most populated country in Europe is Germany with 80 million people. This is not sad, this is a matter of fact. And because of these facts this thread is about Europe vs. USA, it indeed takes a whole continent to face another (nearly) whole continent, how much countries these continents consist of is of secondary importance.

No..., the US is half of a continent... but if all the european countries combine then it would = a USA... One US state = about one EU country.

Ok, Lets assume that A. this war will only be fought between common European countries and USA without any other allies on every side; B. that no nukes would be used, because then both sides will have disastrous losses. The so-called secret weapons will only have a marginal effect if any at all because in a massive conflict like this the sheer number of equipment is the decisive factor (bearing comparable training on both sides in mind).

Secret weapons will have a big effect. if you don't know what your enemies has then you don't know what to fight back with. sheer number in moden war don't mean much.

If Europe was to invade the US then it would take a long time to even get there (you know, theres a huge navy in the way...), and even then it is unsure whether any significant ground can be taken within the US. There is a lot of land-based defense systems that would stand a long time against any invasion, and even then the country is not occupyable because the american population will be armed to the teeth by then. Result: massive genocide, levelling of the cities.

If EU do that then US going to do that. Since you said dense pop then US bombing will be more effective than the EU bombings of the US.

If USA was to invade Europe they would have to launch carrier based attacks. Any attacks launched from european or asian bases will be quickly stopped by destroying those fragile encampments. The problem for the carrier groups is that if they come close to european shores they will have a hard time against the submarine fleet. These would not attack directly but rather the supply routes. That way the carrier aircrafst would have to limit their fuel and ammunition need. Europe again has rather secure airbases very far back in the mainland from where they can launch counter-attacks and defensive CAPs. The problem of Europe would be the dense population, meaning that every succesful bomb raid by US Aircraft would have a severe impact on structures AND population.

A carrier battle group is not easy to destory... and US might want to hunt down the sub fleet before the carrier battle groups get to the shores...

Then again, what we wouldnt see would be massive bombardments of B52s, they would be shot down like flies. B2s would also stand no chance against a tight air defense, stealthy or not, they ARE detectable and can only be launched far away, reducing the bombload and thus effectiveness.

I think the US will take out the air defense before going in with those big B52's. and why would B-2's stand no chance? did EU invent something that detect sealth....?

IF it comes to a land.based invasion then it would be a bit easier for the troops to advance than the other way round since europe isnt as heavily armed, especially to the west. But sooner or later they would face the joker of individual countries troops: they are used to the specific landscape of their country, they have standing and short supply lines, there are plenty sources for oil within europe. I dont think the US troops would come very far.

US troops will last a pretty a long time...

Bottom line: Invasion of the USA IS possible, but with no gain to the invading countries since most of the infrastructure AND the people would have to be destroyed. Invasion of Europe is impossible because of the limitations of supply lines for the US troops.

If invadsion of europe impossible then the invasion of US will not be possible too... and you make it sound liek the US have no submarine fleet or something, If EU can sink US supplie ships then the US can do the same thing.

[edit on 13-6-2005 by Lonestar24]

Lol, OMG, this is the most ridiculous thoguht... But, IMHO nobody would win! We live in the nuclear age, and even if we had a war without nukes, the losing side, whichever that might be, will retaliate with nukes before they are compeltely overrun and end the world anyway. Answer = a war agaisnt the USA by Europe/rest of the world and vice vera WOULD end in the extinction of the human race... FACT.

Originally posted by John Pearce
Lol, OMG, this is the most ridiculous thoguht... But, IMHO nobody would win! We live in the nuclear age, and even if we had a war without nukes, the losing side, whichever that might be, will retaliate with nukes before they are compeltely overrun and end the world anyway. Answer = a war agaisnt the USA by Europe/rest of the world and vice vera WOULD end in the extinction of the human race... FACT.

We all know that, we are just saying that what would happen without nukes! cause we know with nukes no one wins the there will be end of discussion.

Originally posted by ulshadow
We all know that, we are just saying that what would happen without nukes! cause we know with nukes no one wins the there will be end of discussion.

Oh right... hmm, in the unlikely event of that happening, easily a coalition between the rest of the worlds countries could defeat the USA if they all united. Sheer manpower, resource, weaponery, expertise, and technology would simply over-run the USA.

Err... bit of a silly, irrelevant, and hyperthetical question me thinks?...

Originally posted by John Pearce

Originally posted by ulshadow
We all know that, we are just saying that what would happen without nukes! cause we know with nukes no one wins the there will be end of discussion.

Oh right... hmm, in the unlikely event of that happening, easily a coalition between the rest of the worlds countries could defeat the USA if they all united. Sheer manpower, resource, weaponery, expertise, and technology would simply over-run the USA.

Err... bit of a silly, irrelevant, and hyperthetical question me thinks?...

of course the world would never united to destory the USA... + if they do the world will be in chaos and things will be worse if the US ia not destoryed...

America and "evil war machine". Hmmm, sounds like someone is jealous. I doubt such a war would occur as I doubt the Euro's would unite as one unit. I suspect it would be fought well on both sides if it occured and I think American might win due to military size and technology. Now if you switched the picture and asked who would win......China or America.......well, that is a whole different ball game and that gives me more of the chills than Europe does.

Originally posted by ulshadow
of course the world would never united to destory the USA...

Maybe if you read what I write you won't be so quick to asnwer back on a subject that is compeltely hypothetical and hardly worth taking seriosuly. I said "if", which hardly equates to "when". You can't make serious realistic points on a topic that is neither serious nor realistic.

[edit on 15/6/05 by John Pearce]