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 US

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Whoever’s side Israel decides they’d like to see win.

I wish the people of the UK and U.S would get a grip, Israel pulls the strings in both our countries. When we are in power of our country then we can decide who’d win a war.


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Edward 1st]




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold
 


I agree, and as I already said, Americans are raised marksmen. Most of us have more than just a little experience with firearms. We wouldn't even have to be trained to shoot. That training has been going on since we where small children. (I know I was 10 when I started shooting) We hunt animals that have better senses than humans, plus it would be on our own wild vast turf (if invaded). Plus the American people are already heavily armed.


Theres countries in europe that are equally as comfortable with weaponry, switzerland has one of the highest gun per person ratios in the world. Theres a car tv show in the uk called top gear and the presenter drove through the switzerland border in a sports car with an uzi on his passenger seat, they ignored the weapon and questioned him on his cars high emissions to see if they were legal
. Nukes make the whole scenario pointless and history has proven it doesnt matter what you expect of your soldiers and weaponry invading a country whose people are prepared to defend it and its never going to be a forgone conclusion.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold
 


What makes you think that not every european would go and get a gun if such a war started and us troops were advancing? See how usa struggles with some terrorists in afghanistan? They have no money to fight guerilla but still but up a hellofa fight.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Us brits will have candada, good foothold near america, australia, south africa, new zealand, we also have bermuda to station troops, with the falklands and gibraltor. All commonweath. Bermuda, gibraltor, falklands, UK territories.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Europeans also have many countries with conscript military service for all male citizens, so that every man has military education and experience.

My conscription time was 13 months - but in general it's between 9-12 months.

Then I had to go back for a month rehearsal service, learning new stuff & guns from time to time - those 3-4 weeks usually also ended with a one week division exercise with all branches of the military working together - that was real fun!

They even took me to one tour in the Balkans early 1990's with the UN for 6 months.

Last year I received a letter thanking me for all those years and I am now officially in the reserve! - I'm old now!


Well! I'm going to miss it a bit!

Therefore I think we could mass a lot of experienced European soldiers if needed - so if the battlefields would be conventional or asymmetric warfare in the European forrests and in our backyards - we would win of course!



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Very much of an apples and oranges comparison in the original post but I'll bite. I am assuming that we are not allowing nuclear weapons because in that scanario the war is over in an hour, and the winner is the US if they started it and nobody if the EU starts it (both continents are destroyed).

In a drawn out conventional war the winner is the country that can sustain the fighting the longest. The allies won WW2 becasue the US could simply keep pumping out weapons on an almost unlimeted basis. Nobody can make a convincing argument that the Allies had superior weapons, but they did have superior numbers of weapons. The US would be a tough country to over run because it is so large and has some seriously tough terrain to overcome. But in your scenario both side would be fighting across the Atlantic ocean wich would streatch supply lines to the breaking point.

The US is the only country left on earth that has a stratiegic bomber force (well the Russians have the Bear). The B-52s, B-1 and B-2s would be very useful but they do not exist in sufficient numbers to make much of a difference over the long haul. I would also think that the numbers of weapons at the start of the war is not very significant. It is the numbers of weapons that could continuously be built and thrown into the battle that really matters. The US certainly presently has the largest capability to build weapons but the question would be can Europe find a way to convert factories to build more weapons. In addition if Europe could get other countries to sell them weapons (I am not sure what they would buy them with) they have far more potential overland routes for resupply than the US does.

I see a conflict like this simply fading away as people lost interest and the stomach for the continued losses and massive spending required to keep it going. Fighting a geograpic neighbor is one thing but trying to keep a way going across an ocea is extremely expensive.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edward 1st
I wish the people of the UK and U.S would get a grip, Israel pulls the strings in both our countries. When we are in power of our country then we can decide who’d win a war.


Sorry mate. Just cannot let this type of misinformed comment go. Israel does not pull the strings in the UK. The UK has often commented negatively on Israeli policy. Of course, should you have any legitimate (not YouTube rants) websites which have evidential sources which demonstrate Israel "pulls the stings" in the UK, then please do share them.

Regards



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi

Originally posted by Edward 1st
I wish the people of the UK and U.S would get a grip, Israel pulls the strings in both our countries. When we are in power of our country then we can decide who’d win a war.


Sorry mate. Just cannot let this type of misinformed comment go. Israel does not pull the strings in the UK. The UK has often commented negatively on Israeli policy. Of course, should you have any legitimate (not YouTube rants) websites which have evidential sources which demonstrate Israel "pulls the stings" in the UK, then please do share them.

Regards


As someone from the UK it feels as though the USA pulls our strings, Ive no idea if any one pulls the USA's.

I think it may just be the money men and big business that pull everyones strings, behind the guise of politics and the immature patriotism that blinds us to the fact that human life is a worthy life regardless of the land we are born on and 99 percent of us just want to go on living and make the most of what we can in our short time.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Haydn_17
 


yawn....vietnam.
yawn....iraq
yawn....afghanistan

im not seeing numbers and military might win anything.


Besides war isnt about arms anymore, there is other purposes behind it besides give me your land etc.

things like oil.
things like opium trade.
Its just big business not a battle for a nations freedom......

[edit on 20-9-2009 by zazzafrazz]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Us brits will have candada, good foothold near america, australia, south africa, new zealand, we also have bermuda to station troops, with the falklands and gibraltor. All commonweath. Bermuda, gibraltor, falklands, UK territories.


Ugh, buddy, you can leave New Zealand out of your quarrels...we're damn well near American (U.S.) these days anyway and about the only quality export from the 'mother country' is Coronation Street.

...even better, read "Ape and Essence" by Alduous Huxley.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
Just like the first phase of ww2 , this highly unlikely scenario, wouldnt be fought on the shores of each other territory, at first, if at all.

But it would be fought for control of resources for the war effort.

It would result into a stalemate as we fought around the world, with shifting alliances between smaller players.
It would basically bring orwell's vision of a world to pass.

Besides i dont know what could possibly happen to bring such a thing to pass, the world would have to gone soo bad, that its on the brink of tearing itself apart.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
www.guardian.co.uk...

i was very hurt by this. mistake i know but there have been many other accounts!



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by the illuminator
 


That is awful. Accidents do happen, however something like this could have been prevented. It still doesn't mean it wasn't an accident. I'm sure the US soldiers will have this weight on their shoulders forever. I am 100% they aren't proud of it in fact they probably will replay that moment in their head every single day for the rest of their lives.

Anyone no matter the nationality (except Afghanistan of course) would call this a tragedy.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Iblis
 


I understand what you are saying, but really would that become the scenario?

The US would never attack a European nation. You know why? Because Europe is really our ancestral home. My ancestors are European. Living in Europe I can understand having some hatred towards Americans, but what doesn't occur to you is that if any European nation was under attack there is not a doubt in my mind that we would be there defending that nation (except maybe the French... We don't like them very much). If you where left homeless we would take you in. (example would be Bosnia.)

Take the UK for instance. They are our greatest ally. Sure we bicker and sure we call each other names but if it really came down to it we would fight along side the UK till the end. We would defend the UK like it was our own nation.They are our history, they are our best friends on this planet. Americans will die for their friends in a heart beat. If that kind of war ever took place you can expect to see me somewhere in Britain (or northern Europe) fighting on the front lines!

The USA and the UK may not always get along, but we always have eachother's backs.


[edit on 22-9-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Sep, 28 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LetTheTruthBeTold
 



Hmmm... It's tough to say. I'd probably have to give it to the US though. It would be a long, deadly, devastating war - the worst in human history. It would probably dwarf World War II. But, in the end, I think America would win. America has a much higher military budget (like 49% of all world military spending!), and so they have a much larger arsenal (weapons, naval fleet, air force, etc.).
.

The U.S. Military Industrial Complex spends so much more money than everyone else is because it cost us twice to three times as much as everyone else. We don't have as large of an arsenal as you think. Just more advanced.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   
if this were to happen , you better all fight against your government instead of each other !

Dont be so stupid , screw them its us vs the government and we win everytime ! we are the ones in the bunkers with fingers on buttons , we are the ones on the front line !

so dont fall into the trap of mind control and do what uncle sam or the queen tells you !



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Somebody didn't read the sticky.


Originally posted by DJDOHBOY
Please could members refrain from starting threads that are based around:

    what is your favourite gun

    who would win if the ??? and ??? went to war with each other

    who has the best army/navy/airforce/secret service........
    etc etc ...


This forum is for information about Military weapons technology past, present, and future.

Please could we get back to threads with genuine interest.

The above list is subject to change and additions and is not set in stone.


[edit on 22-6-2004 by DJDOHBOY]


That being said, USA all the way, baby. Not that I have anything to back my beliefs, I just refuse to be ruled over by the French.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join