It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 06:20 AM
Europe doesn't have to worry about the US. First of all we've destroyed ourselves economically, and Russia and China are about to beat them to it militarily. Europe is destined to rule the world because that's what the worlds richest men want and decided on long ago. Doesn't everyone see the set-up? Germany had to be subdued for a united Europe to exist. The US has to be subdued for a united world to form. Time for the next step.

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:18 PM
China is a bigger obstacle to a unified world than America, and Russia is by no means a given either. The right play is to use America against China and hope they economically destroy eachother.

The Unification of Europe is destined to be a power struggle between the UK, France, Germany, and possibly Russia, with Southern and East Europe caught in the middle. (Hopefully, and likely, not a military power struggle).

The logical place to expand next is the middle east if oil is still a major concern at that point- and IMHO America will be glad to help, and Europe glad to buy America's help, because America gets richer and Europe snuggles up to America to remove a potential obstacle. Russia and China would probably have something to say about that though, so really unifying the world is best kept out of the ME at first, or else done after ME oil is no longer as big a factor.

The next most sensible place to go is Africa, with India's help if possible. If Europe and India go in and make an organized and profitable union of client states out of Africa, India will be on their side, the Indian Ocean will be as good as a European lake, and China would be boxed out of the middle East.
If Europe gets the US to go along with them (not impossible really- we're in an economic situation where we'll need to join a good coalition, and for the foreseeable future America's military is still a HUGE bargaining chip) then they'll already have a nice chunk of Central Asia to boot (Puppet Pakistan, Conquered Afghanistan, Soon-to-be Conquered Iran, Conquered Iraq). And then it'll be a full-court press on Russia and China, probably with the goal of making China pull the economic rug out from under America (which will necessarily undermine China as well) and at that point we'll be right back to the early 19th Century- Russia can't do anything, Africa and Asia are Europes, so is India, and China is trapped within its own borders- if its lucky.

The only problem is that Americans are real funny about their independence and their money. We're a little spoiled- we just know that we can never live under anyone elses yoke, and on top of that we sorta suspect that being rich by world standards is sort of our birthright. America would never be very productive for anyone else unless we've got it dang good, because there'd probably be a revolution against any government that did so.

Then there's the terrorism factor. Americans are a warlike people. We feel kinda bad about it sometimes, but we do it all the time, and we kinda romanticise it. If America was brought down to size, the rest of the world had better be tougher on illegal immigration than we ever were, because there's a segment of our population- mostly in the bible belt I'm guessing- who would want to blow stuff up and mess with the rest of the world, just to prove how clever they are. To heck with the virgins, we'll do it just to get on TV.

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:20 AM
Once again, I think people seriously underestimate the power of the United States. I don't know why most Americans think of themselves as weak. I believe this perception has led our own nation to continually expand the military.

I will repeat this as clearly as I can: AMERICA IS TOO DAMN STRONG! WE DON'T NEED ANY FURTHER MILITARIZATION! Comparing ourselves to anyone else is pointless, since it just exacerbates our own image of weakness, when in fact we are hyper-powerful.

As for the topic of this thread Europe vs. USA, its laughable. I will give yet another link from to highlight the MASSIVE imbalance of military power in terms of USA vs. the WORLD.

Now, one may think about armies, yes, as far as armies are concerned, the world has more soldiers and definetly more overall land based firepower. HOWEVER, and this is HUGE. IF YOUR ENEMY CONTROLS THE SEAS AND AIR, YOU CANT DO ANYTHING EXCEPT HIDE A FOX HOLE AND GET BOMBED! SINCE AMERICA IS VIRTUALLY AN ISLAND, YOU CAN'T MARCH SOLDIERS INTO THE SEA SINCE THEY CAN'T WALK ON WATER.


Additionally, the USA now has over 250 F-22 Raptors, which even the best American Air-to-Air Missiles can't even shoot down. As far as other American aircraft, in a head to head comparison of 8 F-15's vs 1 Raptor, all F-15's were downed. Similar experiences have occured with the F-18 and F-16. As far as the Euro-Fighter, it is an extremely paired down version of the F-22, but still capable, however, the Euro-Fighter still has a large "footprint" and F-15's can still target them, let alone F-22's. This aircraft to date has guaranteed American air dominance for the next 15 to 20 years.

Think about it, since Russia, China, Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, Pakistan (yes, they actually hate us and only reluctant allies due to other circumstances with India) and unspoken others like Yemen, Sudan and other Islamic countries that generally despise us; If they had a chance at beating us, they'd take it. But they don't, because they know what would happen at this point in time.

To get the full dose of American HyperPower Elitism, read the other posts I have made.

Its time for the USA to start working with other countries and stop dominating, its a position we can't maintain forever, and I would like to think that my grandchildren aren't in some war like USA vs EU. If history teaches us anything, is that noone can be on top forever....

[edit on 30-6-2006 by Nvexx]

posted on Jul, 8 2006 @ 12:45 PM
The US spend aproximately $519 billion dollars on its military alone every year, and with them constantly updating their weaponry it will be more than a match. The main thing with Europe is that if they wanted to defeat america (ya right) they would have to unite as one which may be difficult for eastern and western europe. Otherwise country after country will fall and when Europe is in rubble Exxon Mobil will come and drill your land for oil.

posted on Jul, 10 2006 @ 11:01 PM
Why would we fighting for what.
I don't know the reason...

posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 12:17 AM

quote: 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?

No nukes do not work this way. Standard nukes work through a process called fission, which shoots neutrons into an unstable nucleus [isotope], uranium is the most well known. When this happens, the unstable atom splits, releasing neutrons (to become a stable atom), which releases a chain reaction because it hits the other unstable atoms in the substance causing it to split, creating heat and large amounts of energy. This process happens extremely quickly, less than a second. Hydrogen bombs/ Fusion bombs work differently, mimicking the sun. Creating very very hot temperatures, in which it brings the atoms of hydrogen together, melding them, to create helium. But some of the hydrogen atoms are lost, in forms of neutrons/gamma particles, etc. And gamma particles are
n-a-s-t-a-y. All unstable radioactive isotopes go through processes to become stable naturally anyway, it is just with nukes, and reactors, they are sped up extremely quickly.

Anyway, the question about the EU and the US. First let me just say, Europe and America really needs to get a clue. We are not the enemies. There are other enemies out there who truly seek to demise America and control the EU economically (read up on China & Russia). I read at the beginning of this post, of a guy from Australia would go to Europe to fight against the "evil war machine", which is the USA. All I can say is WTF? Why wait till there is a war why not join Islamic fanatics who believe the same thing.

Anyway, if this poposterous war did happen. It would also depend on what the US and Europe has hiding. If they have anything hiding at all. Saying that they didn't, I would say that America could not invade Europe, and Europe could not invade America.

Speaking of confrontations purely in sea and air, it would probably go to the US, at the moment. In years from now, I do not know.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 05:04 AM

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
Where's this war going to be fought? If Nukes are used it is reasonable to assume annhilation of both sides, no matter who allies with who. However, if it is a ground war, and it occurs in Europe, the USA would surely prevail, hands down. And, if it were an attempted ground invasion of the USA by axis troops, with the intent of subduing the US population, may God bless whomever attempts such a feat....Heckfire, the crack dealers in Philly, NYC, and LA are armed to the teeth, let alone the Mafia, KKK, Black Panthers, ad-nauseum.

man you made my day!!!

I waslmao and am still lmao of this reply...

i do think US would loose..but the fact that gangs would kick such a nice idea.

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 05:56 AM

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
No nukes do not work this way.

Good answer RetinoidReceptor, but in KtprKtpr's defense I do think I recall hearing once that there was some intitial speculation before the first tests (or perhaps a lie on the part of Oppenhiemer and company, who didn't think thermonuclear weapons were a moral idea because they saw anything bigger than their fission weapons as useful only for genocide) that a fusion reaction might generate enough heat that it wouldn't stop.

I can't find any documentation of that, and it actually seems like an unlikely mistake to make since the development of the weapon ran into challenges that made it clear that heat alone would not do it (hence the necessity of the Teller-Ulam design which distinguishes a true hydrogen bomb from a boosted fission weapon), but I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

But no, it isn't true. To be useful for fission, a fuel has to be unstable, heavy, and yield free neutrons. For some reason, very small and very large atoms have higher binding energies than those in the middle. That's why you get surplus thermal output when you fuse hydrogen isotopes into Helium and also when you split Uranium into Krypton and Barium.

A fusion weapon would at least make sense on a basic level, because you can fuse hydrogen and there is hydrogen in the ocean. The problem is that you need heavy hydrogen isotopes, which are rare enough that you'd need an IMMENSE amount of heat, because Earth doesn't have the density or gravity of a star, and therefore a runaway burn isn't just going to happen. You'd need exponentially more heat than most stars generate just to make stellar fusion processes happen here, much less sustain them.

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 10:45 PM
i dont think the US will every fight with Europe if so why are u bringing up the ww2. ww2 was against the nations of italy, germany and japan an look what thouse 3 contries did but here your talking about all of Europe .

posted on Jul, 25 2007 @ 01:11 PM
first of all europe can defend itself, american only helped britain in the world war when it was nearly over and that was because of pearl harbour. Second Britain would back europe, and who ever britain backs would win beacause after all britain has faught more wars than the rest of the world put together. And the last thing, the us only beat britain in a war because you had the help of militia your army was scared to fight with the brits straight out, and britains army was to spread out trying to concer the world.

posted on Jul, 26 2007 @ 08:08 PM
I'll just forget the revisionist history in the above post and just stick to the original question.

Any talk of war France has surrendered.

Now the basis of the war, are we invading Europe or is Europe invading us. Neither will happen because modern weapons are just too good.

For the hardcore people who want this war. Do you really think Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, or any of the other countries that were under the USSR will fight the USA? These are the countries that have joined NATO, even Russia has had talks about joining NATO.

Your question is baseless, but the USA would win. Even if China and Russia "helped", then there would be no winner as the survivors would be living in caves.

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 03:10 PM
if we can hardly handle iraq...what makes you think we can beat the EU? let alone one european country.

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:26 PM

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
And, if it were an attempted ground invasion of the USA by axis troops, with the intent of subduing the US population, may God bless whomever attempts such a feat....Heckfire, the crack dealers in Philly, NYC, and LA are armed to the teeth, let alone the Mafia, KKK, Black Panthers, ad-nauseum.

That's a good point. It kind of reminds me of one of those animals that has so much bacteria that it's actually protected from attacks by other predators. If we were attacked, I'd bet that all of those underground gangs that rely on this country would help quite a bit. You also can't forget illegal immigrants.

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:06 PM
What a nice little thread i missed for about 3 years...

Now, who would win, if Europe and the United States came to battle....
Lets get the guidelines... The US will be be the states and Cannada, Europe would consist of England, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and any other members of the EU that would like.

Countries like China, Russia, India, Venezulea, Iran, the Afican Nations, would all work in thier own intrests.

Now, as it has been laid down before me, the US has such a overwelhemly dominence in both Navel and Air power that any land invasion(that doesn't cross the US-Mexico Boarder) cannnot happen. Sea based invasions would not be a viable option unless attacking from Cuba, but Cuban floating northward in rafts aside, the US would be able to extend its power through the Americas unopposed to operate the Cannal.

Europe, still be surrounded by non-freindlys, and would be faced with american airstrikes from the onset, right away on France, and thier nucuelar capiblities... But this all doesn't matter. Becasue if it came to total world war Europe and the Americas would be allies... there almost 5 billion others besides The Americas and thier European ancestors.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:02 AM
I think that Europe would just allow the US to invade. Once they have, the conversation would go something like this:

US: You must become democratic!
EU: We already are, in fact we invented it

US: Ok..well you must become capitalist!
EU: We already are, in fact we invented it

US: You must become Christians
EU: A majority of us already are, the Vatican and the Pope are both in Europe don't forget

US: You must oppose Russia
EU: Russia is already our number one enemy, that's why we formed NATO remember?

US: Well you must become our ally then
EU: We're already your number one ally

US: What the hell did we invade you for then?
EU: I don't know

EU: Don't look now but China just took over your country
US: Doh

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:10 PM
There'd be no point in such a war. Europe is currently content to rely on the USA and NATO structures set up for security. It allows European nations to spend less on defence, for starters. It'd be like shooting yourself in the foot, with a shotgun, for both sides to engage in such a war. The USA would lose economically strong and diplomatically influential allies, and Europe would be weakened to the point where violence could break out in the Balkans again, or Russia becomes the predominate regional power.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in