Originally posted by the illuminator
my brother (UK ARMY) was in Afghanistan and shared a camp with (US soldiers) he told me the us forces were not as disciplined as the UK and they were
the cause to most friendly fire deaths.
Originally posted by Selahobed
While I respect your brother, being in the armed forces and fighting for his country's interests, I'd like to point out that people are naturally
biased towards their own. Particularly when they say something as far-reaching, and "third-party" as to claim Americans are the cause of friendly
deaths. First, the average infantry men isn't randomly updated on such things - and to defend the chance that he is correct, keep in mind we have
vastly more equipment and firepower in Afghanistan. If, let's say, the Brits lose 20 to enemy fire, and we out-number the Brits 10:1 (entirely
theoretical, I'm not up-to-date on the most recent figure) then losing 200 would make us even. And I am very, very sure 200 people have not died due
to Friendly-Fire.
Incidents do happen. Accident and ignorance alike, but that's a bit.. crude of him to speculate like that, and pass it off as fact.
As an Englishman, I feel I have more in comman with our American cousins than I do do with the frenchies et al. I would never fight against what i see
as my family! No way! We have shared blood, shared language and culture, shared history, and being ex british army myself, we have certainly chewed
the same dirt. So if this did happen, im with you guys.
Im British, Britain is an island not attached to europe, and even though it says im european on my passport i DO NOT class myself as being european..
I have nothing in common with them.
First, let me take off my hat and say I respect such camaraderie, particularly when faced with the event of world war. On one hand, without going into
details and statistics, it would be very brave of the Brits to stand the vanguard against an entire continent. Though in the event such a thing
happened, and there was hostility leading up the event, I have no doubt my government and military would outfit your country the best they could.
[From both a strategic and moral point of view!]
Having not read this thread for a year or two however, allow me to make some observations:
i. The class of "power-projection" that the E.U. and United States share is drastically, drastically different.
ii. The logistics of taking troops to the U.S. mainland would be mind-boggling, and while I imagine it could be done, it would be suicide given,
again, our power projection.
iii. The E.U. military pact is riddled with holes. Given, in a time of threatening the entire continent I'm sure they could get their act together,
but if given if the present situation, it would not go well.
iv. Russia would be tingling with glee at this prospect. And it'd be much easier to tame Europe than the U.S. Do we really expect Dictator-For-Life
[more of less] Putin to sit idly by?
v. On this last note, American does have a glaring weakness: As long as the bulk of our active forces are in Afghanistan and Iraq, it would be suicide
for those folks. Yes, they could put up a good fight, but given that our military is concentrated in those regions, and presently set up for irregular
warfare, it would be something of "culture-shock" to suddenly re-gear for all-out warfare.