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 US

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 02:36 PM
I think you are looking at this sinario all wrong. If a war broke out betwen the US and EU it wouldnt stay those two players for long. 3/4 of the world hates america and would jump on the EU's side the first chance it got. That would leave pure man power with the euro. But americas are used to that, and the way America wins her wars isnt threw pure man power. But she uses mass killing machines, Elite training, and the ability to be anywhere they want within a matter of hours. And i dont believe any invasion of america would weld any success. American citizins are to well armed and any armed force is america would quickly not wanna be there. The same thing happen in there revolutonary war. After losing a few key battels Britin desided staying there wasnt worth it. Another variable would be who is leading america. If america was under a george bush or ronald regan figure america would not alow itself to lose. But if a libral like obama was if office, americas would be fighting itself more than its enemys. But assuming both sides where at there prime i would side with america on the simple fact that america is more willing, ready, and has better war machines than any of the europan nations.

posted on Dec, 6 2009 @ 09:46 PM

Originally posted by Encoded05As for the topic, its a hard one to tell. While we (EU) have alot more trained armed forces and a better air force (including the euro fighter) the US have nukes, civilians and federal organisations with guns.

Better Air Force???

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:30 PM
reply to post by edsinger

Better trained, anyway. Quality not quantity. Laugh all you want, but the most effective pilots out in Iraq and Afghanistan are not from the US.

reply to post by swearikillu

Elite training? Are you kidding? The entire US military is based on the idea that if you throw enough money at a problem, the problem goes away. Training is one such thing. The average US soldier is bogged down with so much equipment that they're not even soldiers any more. Take away any part of that, and they're screwed.

I'm not getting into a discussion about who would win out of an EU/US fight - no-one would win. Both sides have a ridiculous number of nukes, and submarines from which to launch them. Game over.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 11:02 PM
Other than the Israelis, the US has the better pilots, especially the Navy. The only ones I could say come close are the UK's GR4 guys, they are Good and have HUGE balls.

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:20 AM
reply to post by INQUISITION11

Oddly this has already been prophesied to occur in Daniel and Revelations in the Bible. The Roman empire will live again! Moreover europe will attack and invade America again in the near future.

At that time I expect europe to be an islamic caliphate, possibly ruled by Turkey. Eventually the antichrist will be the absolute dictator, the so called imam mahdi. Let's face it the EU is not a democracy as it stands right now. It's run by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats with no accountability The trend towards totalitarianism is already in place.

In the end though, America still wins, thanks to some last minute divine intervention. That's how I see it.

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 01:15 AM

Originally posted by INQUISITION11
Europe could be the ultimate superpower if it got it's act together.Whether that's what we want is another matter.Britain is naturally closer to the English speaking world.Most European nations are generally none aggressive.


Those two pesky world wars had nothing to do with European countries did they?

Sorry, I forgot.

It's not fashionable to point out flaws unless they are American flaws.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by badgerprints]

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 02:07 AM
Well all I can say, as an American currently living in Europe ... I have yet to have a Gov. employee knock on my door (and say they are here to help me). At least some parts of Europe are more free these days than the US. The way things are going the US might need Europe to come bail them out and kick out the dictator(s).

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:41 PM
Im from England and if this country went islamic i woiuld come over to the usa and help fight against europe, i think you will find many from here would do that. but if it was to happen now you would find europe would get the upper hand because of its massive army. altho I love the yanks, and I will gracing your country with my presents after christmas

but like another poster said if it went nuclear then usa would win.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by hurst85]

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:26 PM
America would proberly win.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by badgerprints

Chuck Norris

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:14 PM
Slayer, I was looking for a humorous counter to that post and I discovered something interesting instead.

If you google "losers from europe" you get 4 results, but if you google "losers from america" you get 15,400.

posted on Dec, 13 2009 @ 10:18 PM
Depends, whos territory are we fighting on? If its American soil add 150,000,000 to reserve forces, because thats how many people are armed with guns. Are nukes to be used?

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 04:28 PM
Atual numbers and statistics:
US Armed Forces

US Navy

1 Enterprise class aircraft carrier (to be replaced by Ford class)
10 Nimitz class aircraft carriers

7 Wasp class amphibious asault ships + 1 under construction
3 Tarawa class amphibious asault ships (there is another one however it is soon to be scrapped after being used for testing)
America class amphibious assault ships (1 under construction/3+ planned)

4 Austin class amphibious transport docks
San Antonio class amphibious transport docks (4 active/2 under contruction/4 planned)

8 Whidbey Island class dock landing ships
4 Harpers Ferry class dock landing ships

18 Ohio class submarines (14 ballistic missle/4 guided missle)
5 Virginia class submarines attack submarines (5 active/1 under construction/5+ planned)
3 Seawolf class attack submarines
45 Los Angeles class attack submarines

22 Ticonderoga class guided missle cruisers

53 Arleigh Burke class destroyers (53 active/9 under construction/8-11 planned)
Zumwalt class (1 under construction/1-2 planned)

30 Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates

US Air Force

327,452 active personnel

5,573 aircraft, of which 2,132 are fighters

446 ICBMs

32 satellites

US Army

Regular Army - 539,657 Soldiers
Army National Guard - 360,351 Sodiers
United States Army Reserve - 197,024 Soldiers

Total = 1,097,050 (2008 statistics)

150,000 HMMWV Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle
32,000 M939 Truck
85,000 FMTV Truck
10,000 HEMTT Truck
1,500 HETS truck
6,300 M113 Armored personnel carrier
7,800 M1 Abrams Main battle tank
6,700 M2/M3 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicle
950 M109 Self-propelled artillery
360 M777 Howitzer
40 HIMARS Multiple rocket launcher
990 M270 Multiple rocket launcher
1,497 + 1,078 on order Stryker Armored personnel carrier
1,004 Avenger Air defense

Utility Helicopter
25 UH-72 Lakota (planned 345)
1,444 UH-60 Black Hawk
700 UH-1 Iroquois (to be replaced by UH-72)

Multi-Mission Helicopter
58 MH-60 Black Hawk
63 MH-47 Chinook

Electronic-Warfare Helicopter
64 EH-60 Black Hawk

Cargo Helicopter
442 CH-47 Chinook (191 new CH-47F to be delivered, plus 24 options)

Attack Helicopter
741 AH-64 Apache
20 AH-6 Little Bird

Cargo/Transport Aircraft
11 C-26 Metroliner
43 C-23 Sherpa (to be replaced by C-27J)
48 C-12 Huron

Reconnaissance Aircraft
36 RC-12 Huron

Utility Aircraft
27 Cessna UC-35

US Marine Corps

203,000 active
40,000 reserve

Well got things to do, However i will get back with the equiptment and troop sizes for the EU

However on a short note neither side would win, EU just too dman big for US to occupy, smae goes for America, EU doesnt have the naval capacity to invade America, America has it to get Ireland, even UK, But EU can just flood the area with Aircraft and destroy the Naval task force.. So its Lose lose for both sides.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:20 PM
You can never say never where humans are concerned so the war is a possibility though unlikely for obvious reasons.

safe to assume that an all out war will involve the use of nukes, so the question is who can deploy their nukes the quickest, therefore disabling the enemy and avoiding a strong retaliation. Both sides posses nuclear armed submarines that could be any where. I think the nuclear sub will determine the outcome of the war as they are capable of remaining operational even when most of the surface of both sides are gone. The us have underground facilities where they can still mount strong counter attack after any initial attack.
The us also have one goverment so it will have a more coherent attack on its enemies while having a better defence at home on land due to her well armed citizens.
Though collectively europe stand a better chance of wining a sustained war of attrition. This war will have quick outcome due to the immense power of the weapons that will be involved. I would give the vote to the US as the war will be decided by the initial strikes and counter strikes.

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:44 PM
We have germany ofc we would win, oh wait we also have france....... The U.S wins

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 05:56 PM
I'd guess europe would win, not because of numbers, but because of the mere fact there are so many countries, each with their own techniques, stragedy etc. Which mean at least one of them would figure out how to win.

For the usa, it would be way too much for them to even think straight, it would also be really confusing, they would really have to have some amazing master plan.

But to me anything is possible, especially in war. In my opinion in war NOBODY wins in reality.

Anyway in the end it's really about who's got the best plan. It's brains not power that wins.


posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:04 PM

Originally posted by _Phoenix_
I'd guess europe would win, not because of numbers, but because of the mere fact there are so many countries, each with their own techniques, stragedy etc. Which mean at least one of them would figure out how to win.

For the usa, it would be way too much for them to even think straight, it would also be really confusing, they would really have to have some amazing master plan.

I disagree.
Too many cooks in the kitchen ruins the broth.

A single country focused on a single plan would have the advantage IMO.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 01:42 AM
reply to post by SLAYER69

Yes that did come to my mind haha.

All I really know is, that whatever happens, it won't be pretty!

[edit on 2-1-2010 by _Phoenix_]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:01 AM
Depends on if we're fighting just each other in each other's territory, or if more likely we're duking it out on another nation's territory such as the Middle East.

If we were to limit this to just American and European territory it'd likely be a stalemate. Europe is certainly large enough in terms of territory, military numbers, and population where it'd be extremely difficult to mount an effective invasion against the whole EU. Just isn't likely to work out very well for an American invasion. In the event of a European invasion of America, it'd fail very easily as a result of a very well armed populace combined with limited power projection capabilities on the part of Europe. One of the reasons why the United States has yet to be successfully invaded is because of the fact that we're surrounded by vast expanses of ocean that we've maintained substantial control of since the turn of the 20th century.

However if we're talking about fighting this out in another country, I'm going to have to give this to the US. Once again, it comes down to power projection. This is the same problem that plagues every military in the world, and right now the US is the only one that can effectively handle that issue. Europe simply does not have the airlift or sealift capability needed to mount an invasion against territory being held by a well developed opponent.

As for the rest of the world being against the US, keep in mind that Europe is hardly more popular. There's still more than enough resentment left in the third world over European colonialism. I'll bet the rest of the world would gladly stay out of it and wait for us to destroy ourselves. Which leads to an interesting world vs. US/EU alliance scenario.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 09:10 AM
Warfare has been a permanent feature of European life for over a thousand years and as such it is second nature.
However, I suspect there would be too many internal rivalries for there to be a truly unified strategy etc.

I am curious as to why so many Americans are under the illusion that they are the only people who would be prepared to defend their homeland.
I assure you, every single person I know would be prepared to take up arms and defend their country.

There would be no winners of such an imaginary conflict, except the non-combatants like Russia and China and possibly the next superpowers like Brazil and India, who would all exploit the vacuum left behind.

Anyway, it's all if's and but's and to be quite honest I can't see it happening, at least not in the foreseeable future.

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in