It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Europe Vs Usa Who Would Win ?

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Pearce

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]


ok ok, maybe you don't get what i was trying to say... but sorry if i ever say anything bad to hurt you... no hard feelings man, i was just saying it's impossible for the world to agree on it no matter how bad the US is...




posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ulshadow
ok ok, maybe you don't get what i was trying to say... but sorry if i ever say anything bad to hurt you... no hard feelings man, i was just saying it's impossible for the world to agree on it no matter how bad the US is...


Alright, sorry I snapped. Maybe if Bolvia turns communist or socialist , south america will follow, allowing soldiers to attack the USA from the south? Plus if Canada is against the US, they can invade as well. A subtle pincer movement if u will.
I think that if those nations, north and south where allied with europe (which Canada might and the hypothetical Communist countries of the south DEFINATLY will), we could definatly win.



posted on Jun, 17 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Pearce
Alright, sorry I snapped. Maybe if Bolvia turns communist or socialist , south america will follow, allowing soldiers to attack the USA from the south? Plus if Canada is against the US, they can invade as well. A subtle pincer movement if u will.
I think that if those nations, north and south where allied with europe (which Canada might and the hypothetical Communist countries of the south DEFINATLY will), we could definatly win.


well, i know mexico will be happy to do it cause they want their land back that they lost during the mexican-american war...



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser


I mean, Portugal, ha, they might do what?

Portugal is a medium military power in the World. It's not as weak as it seems. 30 years ago American military studied the tactics od Portuguese military, because Portugal was capable tu fight in 3 fronts in Africa, in the same time as the USA was loosing in Vietname.
Spain and France invaded Portugal several times and they allways lost.
If the USA invaded Portugal it would be much worse than Iraq

Sorry about the English. I don't have english classes for about 10 years.



posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Upsss...my mistake!eheheh



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
i think that if the US ever went to war with Europe and Europe alone, then the US would KILL. All theyd have to do is bring back all of their forces in a massive airlift, bring all of their subs, carriers, warships everything, back home. Have a huge blockade of the united states. Most of the world would be completely pwned by the navy alone. THEN they'd have the US army on all borders ready to kill. Then if they somehow took all of our military out there would be an insurgensy unlike one ever seen. The US continent would be a gigantic killbox. So if you Europeans want to try to invade the US I will gladly invite you to try. No hard feelings towards the Europeans but they wouldnt last a year.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
hi there everyone saw this thread and had to add my two cents worth
i wont go into my job or where i was originally born that could make me bias
a war between america and europe would be intresting as the chances of a war would actually be more of an economic one than a military one
the fact is when the yuan floats in five years time because chinas internal market is almost non exsistent and the yuan having to compete with other currencies the dollar will collapse as its domestic spender will not pay 50 percent if not more than it has done and as the us is the largest trader with china china will look elsewhere and european markets will boom europe has a wider internal markets structure than anywhere else on earth and that is why the euro is booming economic war is about money and thats how britain losts its empire it was the most powerful nation this earth has ever seen but at the end of world war 2 it was in heavy deficit to the us and thus led to the us becoming a super power as it stands it all depends on china in 5 years time.

a military war well this one is very bizarre but for arguments sake lets say all the e.u fighting force on the whole is in conflict with the united states it would be a stale mate situation much like the cold war (and by the way this is a fact its irrelevent which country has the most nuclear bombs )its about distance they can cover ,stealth operations and yeild
no one country wants to lose its capital city and one nuclear bomb can do that.
a nuclear war would not happen between these two nations as it would not benefit anyone on earth.and there would be no winners at all just one example if eu and us carried out a nuclear attack against each other every major city you know would not survive not only would nuclear missiles be used but high tech sidewinders etc the sheer scale would collapse all society as we no it and any surviving countries would also retaliate
military wise though
american technology is all 1st generation where as some european countries are 3rd generation
personally i think man for man a war would be technology versus experience
technology is 60/40 on the americans side with only france germany and the uk matching on the eu side
but however the americans do not have the training that the eu have
the navies of the two would ahniliate the seas the planes of the two would light up the skies but unfortunatly the likes of german and austrian forces foreign legion and the undisputed best special ops in the world the british and australian sas would dominate man power
i was a us marine and its full of 17 year old boys
a royal marine is one of most grueling entry programes in the world
the likes of a gurellia style war would be very unwise on both sides though
as both nations have millions of family ties you could not even trust your next door neighbour an army entering the likes of new york or los angeles would be met with heavey conflict not only by an army but from gangs
just as if they were to enter the likes of birmingham or london paris or berlin any army would find it very difficult to lock down a city they were invading look at iraq there are thousands of american british and other allies trying to fight in cities against an army on paper incredibly inferior but there not having it easy
if i had to back one side from pain of death i would back europe in a war but thats only my opinion because the eu would never invade the us
russia would faulter under europes pressure (it is becoming a european state over the next few years ) and as it is the biggest land mass on the planet the only way the us could win is by china allowing strikes from there which they would not because of the above economic war senario
and as the us launches 90 percent of attacks from europe any way they would be immediatly lost and there first confrontation would be the uk and that would be a tactical error as the us navies would be wiped out by the french germans and royal navies surrounding the gateway to europe they would have to avoid the uk as it stratigically is in front of europe and would use all means nessasary to retaliate that would weakenthe us and us resistance that finally broke through to mainland europe would falter



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Ok firstly congrats to mercedesmercanary for his input pretty well put & informed, he knew what he was talking about.

As a rating in active service in the Royal Navy i have to have my say in this, now bare with me folks. I cant spell, but dont worry my work is mechanical.

I honestly think that there is at least a cold war with the EU & USA coming if not all out war. However no Country in the UN also in NATO has ready acces to there nuclear arsenal without approval from the UN as the UN hold all the nuclear arming codes. This 'cold war' is already begining, the iraq war is all about PETRODOLLAR vs the PERTOEURO, the petro euro is worth more so is more attracive to oil producing states who are only interested in money. FYI petro dollar is how the USA prints its own money circulates it and gets it back, look it up on goole if your not aware. but this prosses is how the USA can still be a Military & economic super power even though they are $46.7 trillion dollars in the hole. in 2003 iraq channges to petroeuro's usa invades & first thing they do is change it back to dollars, this wiped %17 offf iraqs national profit. Iran is changing to petroeuros in early 2006 & is meeting with representitives from Saudi Arabia & OPAC to convince them to change to the currently stonger euro. Of Course these countrys are known for there erm, 'fondness' of america, these states are out to cripple the USA and should this meeting convince them to switch to the euro which i think they will as it will mean more money for them and a victory over the 'infadels'.

This puts the UK in the line of fire, from the US point of veiw we're a doormat to the EU, from the EU we are trators to the mentally disadvantaged americans, my veiw is the good guys on the wrong team. I think UK must join the euro & Push through the EU constitution. ( this would make europe one country under a sinlge government, it has been kicked out once before becasue the UK was chosen to lead it but bliar had his head up bush's arse possably doing unspeakable things :-o ) this ensures our future as a power. Now as for the actuall war, if the UK stays using sterling and sides with the americans then europe dosnt stand a chance.The americans will get to use the UK as a lanching platform and airbase for raptors & stealth craft as well as there army.But if the UK side with europe (nothing personal against USA but but these are my sibling nations) The USA would be more likely to make a first move as its economy is in danger, if its economy fails its military fails its losed most of its power. If it cant start a war & de-stablise the euro i cant see the USA economy survive the pertoeuro. So if this comes to pass, heres how i see it going down.

The USA OR EUROPE simply cannot project enough power across the atlantic to do any real damage, however as i said, IF there was an attack it would likely be the americans, now the the americans are a super power but they cant compete with Europe on our doorstep, the UK ( I like to think) is the dominant military power in europe (as isreal is busy fighting with everyone), we have our own British bulit cruiz missles & 242 RAF F1-Typhoons, currently the most dangerours fighter in service anywhere in the world, search google for a moch dogfight between 2 USAF F-15E's & one EuroFighter Typhoon, other EU nations have smaller fleets of Typhoons, as wells as intercepter tornados(aslo in RAF). This may not sound like a viable force to americans but bare in mind without friendly nations to base your aircraft in you can only lauch from your carryers,this severely limits your range & numbers. so you wont be able to use your quite Deadly Raptors, nor your bombers or stealth craft. This means you would have to put your supercarriers & US Navy (another fine Scottish ivention) withing spitting distance of the RAF, French;spanish;german;italian;swiss(as if they'd ever fight);all the other smaller countrys & Russian airforces, Which im sure you can imagine would not do well for the yanks. this leaves the US sub's. The RN sub's are pretty much as technologically advanded as the yanks but we are less in numbers, however british captians are reputed to be the best, ( I cant comment on this as i am aircract mechanic for the RN Fleet air arm). this means the european navys would have to hunt them or usher them out of missle range of europe. I dont think the Americans could make a toop landing, i cannot think of a place where they could launch it from or a country close enough to the EU which would allow the americans to use there land.

On the other side i dont think i need to explain why europe would not be able to attack america.Canada has the English Queen as head of state, but transporting europes forces across the atlantic would be costly, difficult and futile as we would never make it across the border, The yanks wouls fortify it with everything they had. The Same goes for mexico who im sure as mentioned by Ulshadow would like more lands. But with the full might of the USAF fully amred & local, & with the US Army with all its troops on the borders.

So there you go the attacker would get destroyed by the home nation leaving the door open to rule the world.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Evil_Scotsman]

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Evil_Scotsman]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:53 PM
link   


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


If I´m not misstaken, but did not a European country fight the rest of Europe, Russia & USA for 6 years?



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Americans are from other parts of the world so the biggest problem for such a US govt in such a conflict would be its own people.

Many US nukes and military personnel are based in Europe. At the first sign of a conflict, Europe would very quickly take those bases so the US would lose 100,000 troops overnight.

It wouldn't be just US v Europe. Russia would join Europe(it might even be part of Europe in the future), and then China would join in. South America would then take the opportunity. The British could call upon the British Commonwealth including India, Pakistan, Canada, South American countries, South Africa, Australia etc etc.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Who would win obviously depends on the scenario.

You've got to consider morale, terrain, politics, etc.

Let me see if I can cook up a plausible scenario for the conflict first and foremost... nope.

The nature of the conflict will dictate where the war is fought, how the people on each side feel about it, what other nations get involved, and how quick either side is to take the offensive.


Scenario One: Shattered Union. Probability Factor: 0.0001%

Casus Belli

The year is 2028. Since the Bush impeachment in 2007, the Republican Party has virtually ceased to exist. The Libertarian party fills the void in Mid-Western and South-Western State Governments but is virtually powerless on the national level. As globalism squeezes the American economy, Liberals embrace the idea of a North American Union, in the model of the now full federalized European and African Unions. They believe that a global federation is the only way to cure currency disparities and reign in America's debt problems.

The Democrats easily pass the necessary amendments to the Constitution. Talks between Canada, Mexico, and the United States begin in Ottawa, but an impasse almost immediately results over economic matters involving Mexico and portions of the United States. Canada would prefer to seek membership in the more prosperous EU, but is interested in the Northern-most states, and the East and West coasts. From the North-West Border of Arizona to the North East border of North Carolina, the Canadians see only an economic liability. Talks adjourn briefly, until the EU grants admission to Canada, with an open door to any territories annexed by Canada within 180 days.

Anti-globalists and Conservative Americans panic. Every state south of the so called "Ottawa Line" mobilizes it's national guard, Mexico, heavily insulted by events at the Ottawa talks also mobilizes in support of the Southern States.

Overnight, federal troops enter Austin, Texas and arrest the governor, the seniormost Libertarian governor in America and leader of the anti-globalist camp. Within hours of the news, the Joint Chiefs of Staff stage a coup. By nightfall, an emergency session of the New York state legislature has voted for secession and applied for annexation by Canada. Massachusetts and Vermont follow suit overnight, and the next morning so do Maine, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and California.

The Provisional Military Government declares the secession illegal and orders the seceeding states occupied. Canadian troops are ordered in to resist.
America ups the ante by invading the Ontario Province, cutting Canada in half.

The European Union, which has already admitted Canada, immediately declares war on America.

Coalitions
China makes a secret pact with Canada- they will invade Alaska and then support the liberation of Ontario, but Canada must demand possession of Alaska as reparations and then sell it to China.

Russia, not economically strong enough for a large mobilization provides logistical support for the Chinese operation and sends advisors to help China deal with the cold conditions in Alaska.

Mexico sides with America in return for a promise of union between the two after the war. They will attack South, attempting to secure Venezuela's oil for their ally.

Strategy
America will attempt to cut the Atlantic in half with it's Submarine fleet and win a quick victory in Eastern Canada.

The Europeans will attempt reinforce the Canadians by air and send empty convoys. They hope to send American submarines back to port for munitions, where they can be destroyed from the air, if only they can keep Canada on its feet long enough. Once the seas are open, the Europeans believe they will be able to land enough armor and artillery to free Ontario and break into the Great Plains.

China has no interest in ending the war. No matter who wins, nobody will be able to stop them from taking Alaska, and if America is disarmed at the end, and that will give them the oil leverage they need to make a peaceful conquest of Japan.

Outcome
By this time, the Europeans have parity in the air thanks to earlier downturns in the US economy, however the US remains superior at sea- there simply hasn't been enough time to overtake us in all fields. It all comes down to who wants it more on the ground, and that proves to be Canadians and Europeans.
American forces are plagued by mutinies and desertions, and volunteer forces, while fiercely loyal, prove tactically inproficient and simply waste valuable munitions.
American forces in Ontario are shattered first and run South in disarray. Shortly thereafter, American forces in the Northern Appalachians, with their Western flank wide open, surrender. Mexico Texas quickly hammer out an annexation deal- the Autonomous Republic Of Texas becomes defined on it's Eastern border by the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, as far North as Topeka, Kansas, with it's Eastern border at the foot of the Rockies. It's widely (and correctly) believed that Texas and Mexico have not so much achieved peace as merely an armistice for 20 years.



Scenario 2: The Pillars of Hercules. Probability Factor: 0.0%

Casus Belli
The date is December 1st, 2012. The Democratic party has just lost control of the Congress and Presidency again, having been saddled with the blame for a major economic downturn beyond any administration's control. America needs to reduce the price of oil to get it's economy turned around. The new administration immediately has the CIA cook up an Arab-Israeli War. Israel, acting on faulty intelligence supplied by the United States, makes a series of major mistakes and quickly finds itself clinging to existence. America then declares war on Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Jordan. A CIA sponsored Coup takes place in Saudi- Saudi declares war on America.

Our Islamic pawns realize what has happened and blow the whistle. The European Union declares the Straits of Gibraltar closed to American warships. The UN withdraws from New York in protest and meets elsewhere- The US is kicked off the Security Council.

The US calls Europes bluff, sending fighters from the USS Reagan to test the Europeans over Gibraltar. A fight ensues, and several European aircraft are downed. US Marines land in Southern Spain, securing a small buffer zone near the Strait so that the battlegroup can enter the med- they meet no immediate opposition. The Marines continue to hold their positions however to keep an open line of supply. Europe Issues an ultimatum- withdraw your troops and leave the Med. When the United States balks, the USS Ronald Reagan is attacked. The ship simply cannot come with the size of the attack, and is destroyed, along with several troop carriers.
American forces in Europe attempt to take the cities hosting them and mount a defense. The Europeans are slow to make a strong reaction, but the issue is not seriously in doubt. Both sides declare war.

Coalitions
The UK is deeply divided, some rather ridiculously believing that the war is somehow a French/German idea; they declare neutrality but pledge to commit forces if an EU nation faces a full-scale invasion. Turkey is subverted by Islamic radicals who immediately declare war on Israel.

Russia sees a chance to play both sides against the middle and does so- they go into Turkey to put down the Revolution, pledging to stay neuteral and return Turkey to self government when the war is over.

China stays quiet, examining the angles, trying to decide whether the invade Japan, Siberia, or neither.

Strategy
As Israel begins to lose thanks to the delays, and America realizes that the simple plan has gone horribly wrong, their first priority is getting out of the war with Europe and getting the Arabs back under control. To accomplish this, they'll stay off the continent, going for North Africa, bound for Egypt, and try to pressure the Europeans from the air.

The Europeans, anxious to assert the strength of international law without making the war too costly, will feigh disinterest in the war, keeping it to an aerial standoff over the Med, until American forces have reached Egypt, then they'll spring an invasion across in the American rear, to cut our forces off and force a surrender.

Outcome
America will crush the Europeans in North Africa, utterly shocking everyone yet again with the ferocity of American firepower. Unfortunately, it will be the single greatest pyrrhic victory in history, with America's relationships with most of it's best friends going straight to hell, Russia ending up in control of Turkey and the E. Med, America having lost a lot of troops and equipment at it's European bases, etc etc. Nobody will really be toast afterward, but nobody will be happy.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
You all forgot russia, russia is europian.
It would come to a nuclear confruntation, no one would win.


[edit on 3-2-2006 by pepsi78]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Who would win ?

The answer is: Europe would win.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Ok, guys, I know my last post was long, but I put the thing you seem to be missing right up front for a reason.

Who gets involved, whether it goes nuclear, etc etc is not a given. The reason the war starts determines where the war happens, who jumps in, and just how far each side is willing to take it, and all of that adds has an impact on who wins.

If I may suggest a few key points to consider in any given scenario for the near future though:

1. Nobody is invading the United States in the near future without first securing the cooperation of, and successfully placing a large number of troops in either Canada, Mexico, or South America, and even that leaves them at a disadvantage. The US Navy simply doesn't face any serious competition on the open sea at this time.

2. It is fairly unlikely that the US or anybody else could just plop an invasion onto any European coastline at the outset of a war. This isn't WWII- people see you coming now, and they have the means to do something about it before you get on shore.

3. There are very few geopolitical situations where Europe and America are opposed enough to go to war, and any were to develop they would likely not be on either continent, but rather in South West Asia, Africa, or South America. Such a war would likely be short and low intensity unless the stakes were absolutely huge.

4. China won't screw with America unless 1. America ceases to be so profitable for them. or 2. America screws, or threatens to screw, with them.

5. Russia doesn't go to war when there's nothing in it for them- they've simply got too many problems of their own.

6. If Europe ever does have to go to war, and wants to win, they should all fund the British and the Germans, and just tell France to stay at home and "guard the base".



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Here is a blast for all of you
Half of the united states will turn with europe becasue they have europian origins.

America is Europes little sister.
All strings are puled here.
Think of this, if U.S would be atacked who would jump first to help?
If europe would be atacked who would jump first to help?



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
If europe would be atacked who would jump first to help?


If History truly repeats itself??? CANADA.

As for who would first jump to help America... well 9/11 was 4 and a half years ago, and not even the US Congress has come to our aid yet.

I agree that I see very little probability of a war, and have said as much, but sometimes things change. I doubt the US would go at it with Britain, but who's to say what will be happening tomorrow in Balkans, or in Northern Africa, or France?



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
A war betewn europe the whole europe and united states is not posible.
We would be fighting against our own.
Who made united states?
How about some guy named steve anderson c knowing that he has swidish and irish blood asking him to go to war against his origins.
Almost every white male in United States has europian origins.
Alot of them find out they have relatives in europe.

A war with one country from europe is posible like it was with germany other europian countrys would fight agaist it probally because it has bad intentions.



posted on Feb, 21 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
To answer the question of who would win in a military conflict is to assume that neither side will be using nuclear weapons. From this vantage point I offer the following...

To be amazed, one must look at the US Military Budget for advanced hardware, gadgets and ordinance.

*Please consider the following webpage at GlobalIssues.Org

www.globalissues.org...

Its easy to put men in the field,... its hard to equip them, it takes LOTS of money, something the USA has done better than any other country on earth with the exception of Israel.


The USA has absolutely no peers, none. Noone is even close to having such technologically superior armed forces on such a massive scale, the "total package". The truly remarkable part is that it must all work together simultaneously, a feat only the USA has managed to integrate into its armed forces.

As a matter of fact, the first combat division to actually test this new concept of war was unable to because the 1st Marine Division (considered to be relatively old fashioned by American standards) wiped out 9 Iraqi Divisions with very little loss of life during the invasion to remove Saddam and get to the WMD, he has since moved to Syria and Iran during all the 6 months of UN squabbling. (Iraq HAD an army larger than that of German and French armies combined...)

I will let everyone else decide who can beat who, for all I know your dad can beat up my dad. But in terms of military armament, infrastructure, military industrial complexes, military laboratories... The USA is an awesome beast.

Most notably, I have noted everyone has neglected to mention anything of the US Submariner Forces, which are the worlds most advanced and deadly, bar none. They are capable of wiping out entire navies by themselves.

Regardless of country the order of battle for the USA:
1. Annihilation of anyone's satellites. The USA has Lasers for this.
2. Air Superiority through superior intelligence (note step 1).
3. Coordinated cruise missile strikes to render ground based radar useless.
4. Systematic annihilation of any navy with the use of Aerial and Submarine based forces.
5. Bombardment of dams, powerstations, manufacturing, water/sewage facilities.
6.

The real question, who would win (no nukes), The USA/Israel vs World? Now that would be ugly...

* NOTE: I have every reason to believe in the next 15 years that the EU will match the USA in every way militarily.

***** NOTE: The EU and USA are much stronger together, and we must always remember, we have so much more in common than we think. I hope for a very strong EU one day soon.



posted on Feb, 22 2006 @ 08:03 PM
link   
In the above post I accidentally left out part of the US strategy.

6. Negotiate a peaceful treaty with the hostile nations, or continue pushing their civilizations into the stone-age.

For a partial view of older technology in US Anti-Satellite Weapon Systems...

www.fas.org...

This includes information on older laser and missile anti-satellite systems, which is part of the US plan of Full Spectrum Dominance. We can only guess what is being used currently.


Read what Europe says about the Laser...
www.fas.org...


[edit on 22-2-2006 by Nvexx]

[edit on 22-2-2006 by Nvexx]



posted on Feb, 25 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   
europe vs usa, hmm...

i'm pretty sure that cockroaches would win that one...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join