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.

 

USA vs. the World

page: 19
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
All this talk about the US and UK vs Europe...

I don't know about other British people, but I would think the UK would side with Europe. I definately would.

I don't think the Aussi's would fight for the USA either. I think they would side with the UK.

I think it would be a close fight, but we (Europe) would be helped by the fact that you ( the US ) would probably kill half of your Army and populace yourself through friendly fire
... the US is great at that!

Only joking guys, I doubt we will ever see this war in our lifetime anyways.

And another thing, in response to whoever wrote " Do you think Britain would help France"... I would. Maybe the English hate the french but the Scots don't mind them at all. Auld alliance is all i'm saying.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Snoopdopey]




posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
All this talk about the US and UK vs Europe...

I don't know about other British people, but I would think the UK would side with Europe. I definately would.



I Would not , Particularly wish to side with any one, but especially not the French et al .

Im sure the closest The US and the EU wolud come to war would involve sabre rattling RE the petro dollar/Euro.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
How bout what would the USA do if the European Union became powerful

Keep wishing. Out of 25 EU member states, only Great Britain and Germany have militaries that are not laughable.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Zibi]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snoopdopey
All this talk about the US and UK vs Europe...

I don't know about other British people, but I would think the UK would side with Europe. I definately would.


well i think your a rare breed my friend!!


since when as britain ever stood together with europe? since when do the british people say 'i'm european' - i certainly don't.

i don't think the britain needs to stand by the US either, 70 years ago we never owned 25% of the world by kissing nations bums.






[edit on 30-4-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I wouldn't say we're European either to be honest. But I'd rather side with Europe than the US... I like Europe more personally.

I see myself as Scottish first, then British, then European!

So siding with Europe is down the pecking order for me, but preferable that siding with the US in a US/EU war.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I don't think people are understanding the importance of an Air Force in this thread. So let's talk rationally with facts instead of with your pride. First, bombers are ineffective without fighters to control the airspace. Now, let's take radar and SAM's out of the equation because in the end, these can be easily made irrelevant by radar jamming, cruise missles, or EMP bombs. (By either side) So the Air war will simply come down to fighter jets.

So what does the USA have in its arsenal? (I have posted some of these facts in another thread about Iran, so if you think you are experiencing dejavu...you're not)

The F-15. Despite being developed in the 70's, this has been combat proven in the modern world. The F-15 has NEVER been shot down by an enemy fighter....EVER. This includes combat served in militaries other than the USA...like Israel for example. The F-15, since it's debut, has recorded a 104-0 kill ratio. Now...yes European countries also have this plane...but...they only have the airframe. The plane was sold without the American avionics package, which is classified. The avionics are the eyes, ears, and countermeasures of the aircraft...basically...the stuff that makes a fighter jet live or die.

The F-16. Another superior fighter which is also used by a few European countries, but again, the avionics were left out. The F-16 is another fighter which has never been shot down by an enemy fighter....EVER. This jet since its debut has posted a 70-0 kill ratio.

The F-22. This plane was just announced to be "operational" in December of 2005. Operational meaning able to deploy and fight, it's not just a testbed anymore. Obviously since it is only a couple months old, it has not seen combat yet, although I think the USA would love to test this out in Iran. Supposedly, in recent exercises, rumors have been said that 1 F-22 was put up against 4 F-15's...all 4 F-15's were shot down and were never able to aquire the F-22 on radar or visually. Considering it took on 4 planes that have never been shot down in combat, and killed all 4 without being detected...I would be a little worried.

Having said all that I still stand next to what I said on the last page. The EU would have no shot in hell of invading America. The USA would be able to invade Europe, destroying the vast majority of its military, but once we hit the ground and Europe remembers Iraq and starts an "insurgency" like rebellion...we would probably get our ass kicked in a matter of weeks....making the whole war pointless. But then again...we would probably be smart enough not to send armies on the ground. We would probably just bomb your military and infrastructure into oblivion ala "shock and awe". That way we wouldn't destroy half of our own troops on the ground.


But....who knows....maybe that's just MY pride talkin.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
3) please look in the dictionary on the word 'empire' the US isn't an empire its a 'superpower'


[edit on 30-4-2006 by st3ve_o]

Many people believe the US is quickly transitioning from a superpower to an empirical superpower; just though I'd note.

BTW, I looked empire up in the dictionary:

Empire - A political unit having imperial or imperialistic sovereignty, domination, or control

Imperial - outstanding in size or quality; having supreme authority or sovereign

Sovereign - a nation that governs territory outside its borders; one, collectively or individually, that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit.

So, technically the US could be considered an empire, or at least an upcoming or definate potential empire.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Omniscient]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 07:43 AM
link   
We all seem to be forgetting a rather crucial bit of geography which is the Atlantic Ocean. If the USA and EU went to war with each other then just HOW would they fight?

I cannot think of a single possible issue that wouold result in the the EU or USA having a military encounter. We are all democracies - it just would not happen. Similarly I could not see any Australia ever siding with the USA against the UK! Does anyone on this thread actually know any Australians or have an idea of the demographic breakdown of the Aussie population?

Cheers



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Flaguy
That dosnt neccesarily mean that the USAF has overwhelming technical superiority to the EU. Granted there are number of american airframes in service with euro nations, but that dosnt mean they are at a huge disadvantage. European defense and electronics companies more than match american ones in spohisitaction,ie, BAE Systems, Borfors, Matra, Marconi, Dassult, QinetiQ to name a few. We brits in fact have a habit of tkaing american things and adding mods to it (no im not talking about chavs in their ford fiestas!
)
Take the Phantom. About 118 airframes were produced for the RAF and fleet air arm, to which we then added our own rolls royce spey engines, which increased power and range, and british made subsystems.
Today,all but five of our 60 odd Apache Helicopters are built here at Yeovil. Again the WAH-64 is fitted with rolls royce engins that produce more brake horse power than the origional, utilise british electronic countermeasures, and can accomodate british weapons systems alongisde hellfire. Its also able to undertake amphibious operations from ships such as HMS Ocean. The tornado meanwhile, although its not a dog fighter, is every bit as a good a strike fighter as the f15. But i digress.

As paraphi said though, how do you expect to traverse the atlantic to the EU? does the US Navy have the sea borne logictics to cross that space? as in troop transports, support ships etc. This isnt a backward post gulfwar 1 iraq. Ur gonna have to invest far more in manpower, fuel, training etc to crack open europe. TBH, id agree that Britain would ultimatley side with Europe. Okay, we have a long history of conflict with each other, but things change. Soon, they will be no longer anyone left who can remember a pan european war.

But seriously dudes. War with the usa? it aint gonna happen.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by flaguy
The F-15. Despite being developed in the 70's, this has been combat proven in the modern world. The F-15 has NEVER been shot down by an enemy fighter....EVER.

The F-16. Another superior fighter which is also used by a few European countries, but again, the avionics were left out. The F-16 is another fighter which has never been shot down by an enemy fighter....EVER.

A huge accomplishment considering taking on only poor countries with equally poorly trained and equiped nations in hugely inferior numbers.



Originally posted by flaguy
We would probably just bomb your military and infrastructure into oblivion ala "shock and awe".

Change that to civilian infrastructure, as cowardly demostrated in Serbia. Most of the tanks and a lot of other military hardware was left intact despite the hugely inflated NATO victory bulletins which later ridiculously proved to be false. When run out of military targets, bombing civilian targets became the latest sports in the game of taking on handkerchief sized nations.

[edit on 5-5-2006 by Simon666]



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   
It’s really not that complicated. America has the means to project enormous and sustained power anywhere on earth and rest of the world doesn’t

So America can blow up stuff anyplace it wants, but it lacks the standing infantry to occupy a continent.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by El Tiante
It’s really not that complicated. America has the means to project enormous and sustained power anywhere on earth and rest of the world doesn’t

So America can blow up stuff anyplace it wants, but it lacks the standing infantry to occupy a continent.


The USA is hugely powerful militarily. However, the US has never faced an opponent with comparable technological advancement or military doctrine.

It is all well and good seeing a handful of clapped out T55s neatly arranged in rows all going up in flames, or the odd Mig 29 flying to it death against waves of F15s with AWACs and all that, but that's not First World. First World is a different kettle of fish with sophisticated tactics and radars that work.

Regards

Regards



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 02:16 PM
link   
would say that the US would mop the floor with Russia.
[edit on 4/30/2006 by ludaChris]

What the hell?!!! Heck no, I've lived in Russia, I know the Russia's military better then I know myself. I kNOW that when a country attacks Russia, Russia wins. Russia is not a mirror of itself in the 80s, because most of those weapons are still in Russia, plus Russia
has new weapons and will continue to make new weapons. Russia is a proud, strong country full of proud, strong people. And their economy is getting better, little bit at a time. I am currently in USA, but I have Russian news. In 1 year I'm going back to the Russian military. I know what's going on there. Don't try to underestimate Russia. I don't underestimate USA as I know that if Russia was to invade USA, the outcome could be different. The soviet union broke up, yes, and Russia got weaker, but now its slowly getting stronger. Perhaps in a few decades it will be back to its glorious power it once was.



posted on May, 5 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
The USA is hugely powerful militarily. However, the US has never faced an opponent with comparable technological advancement or military doctrine. ...


You might correct your statement to "has not faced a comparable opponent since the fall of the UDSSR".

In WW1 for example the US military was generally less capable in terms of technology, tactics and experience. That is one reason why the Americans, despite committing comparably small troops and at a time when the central Powers were already nearly defeated, lost so many soldiers.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
The USA is hugely powerful militarily. However, the US has never faced an opponent with comparable technological advancement or military doctrine.

This is not true. America has fought against Germany twice.

The US military is the most powerful military in the world because it has fought against many countries, and has won all of the wars it has fought.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:56 AM
link   
if we fought the world I dont think we would win unless we nuked everyone then we would die to because of radiation



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by paraphi
The USA is hugely powerful militarily. However, the US has never faced an opponent with comparable technological advancement or military doctrine.

This is not true. America has fought against Germany twice.

The US military is the most powerful military in the world because it has fought against many countries, and has won all of the wars it has fought.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Zibi]


1. In Somalia you almost lost against a bunch of crazy drug lords and that was Delta Force, supposedly one of your elite forces.

2. Vietnam you didn't really fair too well either. Won in the end though.

3. World War Two, you only joined in at the end to claim you won. You's werent going to join in until Pearl Harbour got bombed. The US only joined in at the end so they could say "Yeah, we won the War", and yes yes i know you will say "you would of lost if it wasn't for us" but sadly that is Bull, and the whole world knows it.

Anyway ..... A Whole World War ..... Britain would stand with America, even if the people didn't want it. The EU would stand with Russia and China and the likes of North Korea etc. So America would quite frankly be pretty #ed. But it isnt going to happen is it, because no one has the balls to stand up against America, apart from the likes or Iran who can't do much in all honesty. However if the World did stand against the States, America would be history. Russia would come back pretty strong, and China is increasing ridiculously. China at the minute is becoming the Worlds Richest Country at 10% more every Year.

But the whole thing about America V The World, just wouldn't happen, because the only way America could win it is if it went Nuclear, then the likes of Russia & China and most the other countries would do the same and it would be the end of the World as we know it.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
And you greatly mis-understand those wars, as the Secretary of Defense during the Somalia incident denied the military C-130s and tanks as it had requested. And no, Somalia was both Rangers and supposedly Delta Force. And no they were not almsot beaten, they accomplished their mission and killed far more Somalies than the Somalies killed of them.

All of that could have been avoided if that Secretary of Defense hadn't denied them the tanks that would have allowed them to plow through all that AK-47 fire easily.

Vietnam, Lyndon B. Johnson literally prevented the military from attacking the targets it wanted to. When Nixon finally allowed these targets (mostly Northern Vietnam) to be attacked, the war ended quickly.

As for this "USA versus the world" baloney, it is really a ridiculous premise as NONE of the world's countries except Britain has the military capability to launch a full-scale attack. These countries would be committing suicide as they'd destroy their biggest customer (the USA) and their economies would crash. Then they'd all struggle over who got to control what.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
^^ Duh not to mention it would be a nuclear war=Apocolypse.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Obviously the Americans killed more Somalis than the other way around!! The Somalis had an overwhelming majority with overwhelming inferior armor. C'mon the whole city had turned against the Americans and they were literally attacking the cornered Americans in waves!!
Infact the actual cavalry who got the Americans out of Mogadishu were a U.N. contingent of Pakistani and Indian soldiers.
Tanks?!! In Mogadishu? Amidst civilians? In a peacekeeping mission?

The only way out was to get in some armored troop carriers and get those soldiers out;and thats what the UN did.

Australia better side with the US is ANY future conflict. Neutral is ok but going against the US would be tactical suicide! Irrespective of whether the US is against or with the US!
There's no other friendly nation with a sizeable deployable military force for 1000s of kilometers! (Except for India maybe)

[edit on 31-5-2006 by Daedalus3]



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join