user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
me
I think Europe would win too, but where did these number come from because If I am reading this right I only see 270 fighter aircraft for the US?
where did these figures come from?, from what I have seen the US spends more $$ than the next 20 countries combined, I am not disputing those figures, just curious
by ABC on Wed Jun 23, 04 4:56pm
[+]
** karma **
** karma **
"I only see 270 fighter aircraft for the US?"
yes, in terms of up to date fighter aircraft, the USA has very few. do not forget that, much like the RAF, many ground attack aircraft have a strong combat ability too: ie. dual role.
"where did these figures come from?" & "but where did these number come from because"
as i said, they are draw from various sources, the most noteworth of which are Encyclopedia Britanica, Hutchinsons' Encylopedia and Janes Defence Intellegence.
Jack, every time you comment, nonsensical shite comes out of your mouth. you are too stupid to counter any arguement put to you, so, concious of your stupidity, you just blurt out any crap that comes into your dull head. example:
"glory days of their shitty empire" surely a shitty empire would not have had glory days? i detect a brainless idiot.
you need professional help.
I'm not sure why you would omit the "dual role" aircraft because in doing so I am sure you are not counting the F-15 (396 in active duty)which is a great fighter, the US just happens to use it more for air to ground and they can surely still wax most other countries fighting force. Also, remember not to count what the Air Force reports, they had the F-117 Fighters in use long before anyone knew about it. The number of aircraft just made me question the validity of the statistics you gave.
The bottom line though is Europe is too big and diverse with too many people for us to handle. But if we could just do one country at at time (LOL) we would do okay!
question...
should i start a ballot asking whether Jake-fate-redux is the most stupid human being ever spawned from a whores ovaries?
If europe so almight then why did they need the US to do the bulk of the fighting in the balkans? You'd think they'd be able to handle a tiny little disturbance in their own backyard without calling in the US to help them out, and yet they couldn't. Curious.
No, europe could not beat the US in a war, even in the unlikely situation that the entire continent allied against us. France has 1 aircraft carrier that doesn't work and has no aircraft, we have 7 that do work and are fully stocked. We have a larger military budget than the entire continent of europe combined, and it pays off. No one can keep up with us on the battlefield. The only competition in such a war would be who gets the higher body count, the army or the marines, I'd go with marines.
In fact, the most recent defense budget increase is larger than the yearly spending on ANY OTHER NATIONS MILITARY. That's right, our increase for the army tops your total budget.
www.clw.org milspend ushighestbudget.html
we would crush the sissy EuroPEANS like the little bugs they are! Fuck your mother doctor shittydrawers I hope she dies of fucking stomach cancer slowly. Asshole!
duckhead, the fighters with a 'dual role' are included in the 'bobmbers/ground attack' catagory.
"But if we could just do one country at at time (LOL) we would do okay!"
i dissagree. although trying to stand up to the US's armed forces would lead to eventual defeat for the country in question, the USA's casualties would be so high, and the cost of the war so great that the invasion would be forced to withdraw, without really achieving much: vietnam, basically. quick victories for the US forces initially, but then casualties would catch up with them and they would fail.
"If europe so almight then why did they need the US to do the bulk of the fighting in the balkans? You'd think they'd be able to handle a tiny little disturbance in their own backyard without calling in the US to help them out, and yet they couldn't"
i dispute this. the balkans was a NATO operation, and the US wanted a piece of the action to show the Russians that they were yup to the task. also, about 30% of the forces were British, and 40% were american. someone had to take the lead, and the USA chose to. you really think we couldnt get rid of Milosevic?
"No, europe could not beat the US in a war, even in the unlikely situation that the entire continent allied against us. France has 1 aircraft carrier that doesn't work and has no aircraft, we have 7 that do work and are fully stocked. We have a larger military budget than the entire continent of europe combined, and it pays off. No one can keep up with us on the battlefield."
ok ok. the french have oine aircraft carrier, and it is extemely good, and equipped with adequate fighter planes and top notch helicopters. the British have three light carriers, and two other vessels which could be carriers. planes are again, adequate and the Merlin is the most up-to-date marine helicopter in the world. the spannish have two carriers and the italians have two carriers, much the same as the french. the turkish also have three medium role carriers. i make that 11 eureopean carriers. also bare in mind that we have more up-to-date support vessels than the USA, and the British have one of the most effective mine-clearance forces in the world. aircraft carriers are nothing when faced with submarines and land-based aircraft when they dont have the necessary support ships.
whatever you may say about the US military, the fact remains that europe has more trained forces, more modern tanks, more ships and more aircraft than the USA. we are not the bloody Iraqis: dont let your victories blind you to the truth. we would not be a pushover. we would match you on the battle field, and defeat an invasion. and to say "The only competition in such a war would be who gets the higher body count" is simply ridiculous. i respect american for its military might, and have no dilusions of former British grandure, the empire and all that crap, but i know that although no single country could defeat the USA, she is not omnipotent, and to think that she could walk over any country in the world, including such develloped nations as Germany, France or the UK, is lunacy.
when you say that your military budget is going to increase, you must bare in mind that the Bush administration is running a huge deficit as it is, and any expansion will not be sustained without cuts elsewhere.
dont forget that in my statistics i have not included Russia. they might want a piece of the action against their traditional enemy, meaning that our acess to manpower and armour would be increased almost two-fold. it is debateable whether Russia is part of europe, but it is generall accepted that Russian up the the Ural mountaines is european Russia.
okay, I see how you did the aircraft.
Embarassing to say but I actually thought about this last night when I was going to sleep and tried to come up with how an invasion force would go either way, Europe on North America or Vice Versa. There is no feasable way to guess the victor, I honestly don't think Europe as a whole could take the US with an invasion, I don't know how they could possibly get here in large enough numbers. Same goes to the US trying to take Europe, its fine and dandy if you have millions and millions of troops, but you got to have the boats and planes to move all those people, and be able to supply those troops.
I did come up with an advantage that I think the US may have, Oil. We dont have to have a supply line of oil from out of the country, we have plenty in Tx and Alaska. I think we could possibly hurt Europe's income oil supply (where are the nearest oil yards? off the coast of Norway and old Yugoslavia area right?) and I dont think these are very high yielding fields but they are close enough to borders to be vulnerable. Our fields in Tx are quite a ways inland and that would be from the Gulf which would also prove to be difficult to slip in and out of, just as the Med would be in Europe. Hmmm. I just hope it never happens, and I don't see why it would because olthough our respective leaders make dumb decisions sometimes I doubt that either would want to destroy a whole continent.
our nearest oilfields are in the North sea, the Caucasus in Russia and in a balkans. there are also sub-mirine pipelines under the med, supplying oil to europe from north africa and west africa. europe is almost self sufficient in terms of oil needs, as we can produce a hell of a lot, and we have lots of land and "untouchable pipeline" based import. we also are more conservative with our petrol/gasoline, and our electricity infrastructure is less reliant on oil.
the USA, howver, could never supply its entire nation from Tx and Alaska. it just cant happen.
i dont think oil would be a problem, as the days when a single power controls the seas are over.
i agree that any invasion of europe by the USA, and vice versa, would fail. if an invasion of either continent occured, quick gains for the invaders at first, but then the invaded would respond, and casualties would be astronomical. armistice and withdrawal would follow, then an uneasy peace would settle upon the two groups.
so much for the advatage in oil, I didnt know there was a pipeline under the med? Weird.
The US is actually sitting on huge oil reserves 12th or 13th largest in the world, but we do use something like 20 million barrels a day which IS more then we can produce a day even though the oil is available.
Remember the movie War Games? I have read they do have similar computers that play out wars with diffrent variables, I wonder what a computer would conclude other then complete anialation of each other. Oh yeah. Just though of another advantage being that I served in Turkey with some Brits. We could cut off their supply of Barley and Hops and there would be paranoia for I dont think I met a single Brit that didn't have a cold one in his hand!
hehe, yeah we like our beer over here. destroy the breweries, and Britannia will fall lol.
yeah the pipeline uner the med geas between the northern tip of africa to spain: across that little straight.
You forget about our $20,000 toilets. We spend A LOT on top secret military projects that we don't reveal when fighting weak powers like Iraq, but you can bet these would be coming out against more advanced nations like the Europeans powers. btw, we have 1666 fighters.
yeah, THC, like i said i included dual role aircraft, ie aircraft with a gound attack capability aswell as a fighter ability, in the "bombers/ground attack" catagory.
That's a good point. If we were in dire straits we could let the Japanese rearm themselves. I can see Japan as our best ally in the future. I don't about the Chinese though. If we offered them more control over Asia, they would help but that would conflict with Japan's and S. Korea's interests.
When you talk of who would ally with who, and the international consequences, remember that this war will never actually happen, even if it did, Britain would ally with our english speaking buddies across the lake.
you say china would ally with the USA. i cant agree. they are too isolationist to take sides, and also, the chinese like europe for honouring colonial treaties, like when Britain and portugal agreed to Canton and Hong Kong back to them in the '90s, as was agreed 80 years ago. i think europe has better relations with the chinese than the USA.
you say scandinavia would remain neutral? sweden would, but finland possibly not and Norway definately not. Germany would rush to the aid of her friends the French, as would Poland and Austria. The Benelux, with their high technology and excellent training, would certainly be a force to be reckoned with, as would spain. the italian army has seen a lot of changes in the last decade, and are now quite a force, they perfomed well in iraq. you are right in saying that Britain and Russia would be the greatest assets of the european alliance.
seriously, look at the statistics . european forces outnumber american forces in every respect, and technological differences are negligable, as we are really not that far behind. indeed, many pieces european hardware are considered the best in the world, such as the Boxer IFV, the Challenger II MBT, and the H&K G36 assault rifle.
I wonder though, are your secret weapons as advanced as ours? I'd rather not know considering that would mean war had broken out.
lol. that's the point. noone knows how good anyone's secret weapons are, because they are secret.
while the US company Locheed martin prides itself on the Stealth plane, the British maritime company Vospor Thornycroft has develloped an entirely stealth Frigate, with no radar signiture, and a some sort of photocloak, much like the one Gnereal Dynamics invented.
the British also have a massive chemical and bioligical weapons program. kinda scary the shit their develloping in "abandoned military installations."
I remember seeing a documentary in which they showed a prototype for a stealth sea vessel being developed for our navy (GD?). I thought to myself "It's pretty stupid to display this for the world", they must have agreed because I haven't heard about it since. Our government tends to sponsor research and classify it after they realize it may be useful for the military. I've heard through the grapevine that one of the DARPA projects here is about to be classified. Lockheed missile systems has a facility near my house, I hope the nukes don't start flying.
general dynamics devolloped a visual cloak in the early 90s for the Abrams tank, but it never went anywhere, because of power issues. but Vospor thornycroft incorperated the idea into their new concept of real stealth, ie radar and actual invisibility for vessels, thus making them less vunerable to air attack. i havent heard much about it either, but it is likely this technology will be applied to the new Type 45 destoyers, and the new Trimaran frigates the Royal navy have ordered.
To play Devil's advocate and disagree with the European victory idea, i'll give it a shot. First i beleive that the U.S. will hold many trump cards, first is the Tank issue, yes the Europeans have more tanks, but the quality of some countries tanks become an issue. Put this with the American helocopter threat and more importantly the Tank Buster the A-10 I see the battle field being leveled. The U.S. has the best submarine fleet in the world bar none, with the best technology and many officers that sharpened there skills agains the soviets during the cold war. The Aircraft carriers will give the Americans the use of small islands that can bring the fight to any coastline in the battle field. The problem agian with the Frigates and Destroyers are that many Europena ships are obsolete and were bought off of American and Soviet ship yards when the superpowers called the ships useless.
Long range Heavy bombers are the key to any fight, this is shown in the Air Wars in the pacific and European Theatre during WW2. And the best long range bomber is the B-52 StratoFortress. I beleive that it would be a bloody fight, but in the end the Americans just are to much and would be to well trained to loss.
"first is the Tank issue, yes the Europeans have more tanks, but the quality of some countries tanks become an issue. Put this with the American helocopter threat and more importantly the Tank Buster the A-10 I see the battle field being leveled."
the European tanks are easily a match for the US built abrams. we have the Challenger IIE: the best in the world, the Leopard II: again, extremely good, the brand new French Leclerc etc etc. Europe also has many anti tank solutions: the British now have our own version of the Apache helecopter: the Longbow, which has a more powerful engine, and better anti-armour missles . the tornado ground attack aircraft can be fitted with this missile also.
"The U.S. has the best submarine fleet in the world bar none, with the best technology and many officers that sharpened there skills agains the soviets during the cold war."
this is, again, debatable. the most technologically advanced submarine fleet is without doubt the Royal Australian Navy's fleet, but europe is not far behind. the British are building 20 new Astute class subs are tip top. i know little about the training of american officers but in europe training is paramount, and no expense is spared in effectiveness of naval crews. as a country, the USA has the best submarine force, but against an alliance of western europe, the field is more even.
"The Aircraft carriers will give the Americans the use of small islands that can bring the fight to any coastline in the battle field."
it is a simple, tactical fact of life that carrier based aircraft, however they are used, will never be able to match similar aircraft based on land. the superior logistics of land based aircraft means they will always prevail. that is how it is. an invading army must establish a beachhead and inland bases otherise it will be defeated. every war in the last century has told us the same thing, despite how technology has advanced.
"The problem agian with the Frigates and Destroyers are that many Europena ships are obsolete and were bought off of American and Soviet ship yards when the superpowers called the ships useless."
this is simply not true. the vast european shipping industry makes all the surface ships for the european navies. the days when old russian, or old american ships were bought by spain, or germany are over.
"Long range Heavy bombers are the key to any fight, this is shown in the Air Wars in the pacific and European Theatre during WW2. And the best long range bomber is the B-52 StratoFortress."
i agree with this to a certain extent. long range bombers are always an advantage, but in this age of RADAR and supersonic aircraft, heavy bombers are too vunerable to short range jet fighters to be of so great a use as they were 50 years ago. the use of bombers would depend upon absolute air superiority and that would be difficult to achieve. dont forget, europe also has a lot of heavy bombers which we mothballed at the end of the cold war, ready for the next major conflict. the British Vulcan heavy bomber is comparible to the B-52 in many respects, although the stratofortress, is, as you said, unmatchable.
"I beleive that it would be a bloody fight, but in the end the Americans just are to much and would be to well trained to loss."
it is difficult to say with any authority who would win this hypothetical war, but based on statistics, i think europe would win if there was a big battlefront to be fought along, because of our greater military resources; but any invasion of america by europe, or europe by america, would be either defeated, or would be unsustainable, and would be withdrawn. amnesty would be reached before any serious ground was gained or lost.
advanced submarine fleet is without doubt the Royal Australian Navy's fleet, but europe is not far behind. the British are building 20 new Astute class subs are tip top.
Better than the Sea wolf? I just don't see that happening.
"The problem agian with the Frigates and Destroyers are that many Europena ships are obsolete and were bought off of American and Soviet ship yards when the superpowers called the ships useless."
this is simply not true. the vast european shipping industry makes all the surface ships for the european navies. the days when old russian, or old american ships were bought by spain, or germany are over.
Didn't know this, but again it's agruable on technology, which is better.
i agree with this to a certain extent. long range bombers are always an advantage, but in this age of RADAR and supersonic aircraft, heavy bombers are too vunerable to short range jet fighters to be of so great a use as they were 50 years ago. the use of bombers would depend upon absolute air superiority and that would be difficult to achieve. dont forget, europe also has a lot of heavy bombers which we mothballed at the end of the cold war, ready for the next major conflict. the British Vulcan heavy bomber is comparible to the B-52 in many respects, although the stratofortress, is, as you said, unmatchable.
The US also have Fighters to escort Heavy Bombers.
But as you said, it's simply unrealistic to expect to have any long term success across such a vst ocean. The atlantic would be the true winner bringing her will to all the compatants.
so we are agreed that any war would end in stalemate and financial ruin?
I'd hope to never go to war with America. I have reletives over there. I have been there it's a nice country and the people are friendlier than you think! I'm pretty sure Denmark and other scandinavian countries would stay neutral. Danes like americans! Pretty bad though it would take an entire continent full of countries to take one country down. We would probably still lose
why would you think all of europe would go to war with usa, this question is really rediculous, you are putting over 20 countries against usa. even if your figures are right, the technology of american military would out weigh the troop figure, yes I know uk and France have a tech. military, but it still does not rival americas, the former ussr was good example of that, they had more weaponry but it was balanced by usa's tech advantage
by USMC on Tue Aug 10, 04 3:07am
[+]
these figures are all wrong, if you are going to make am arguement, at least get your facts straight
by USMC on Tue Aug 10, 04 12:00pm
[+]
"why would you think all of europe would go to war with usa, this question is really rediculous, you are putting over 20 countries against usa. even if your figures are right, the technology of american military would out weigh the troop figure, yes I know uk and France have a tech. military, but it still does not rival americas, the former ussr was good example of that, they had more weaponry but it was balanced by usa's tech advantage"
as i have said all along, when we are talking about western, develloped powers, differences in technology are negligable. our militaries are evening out the technological gap that used to be between the USA and Europe. many European systems are better than their american counterparts. example, the British Warrior, and the German Boxer are better than the US Bradley. the Challenger IIE is better than the Abrams the Eurofighter outperfoms the F15 & 16, and is even said to be better than the F-22 . the RAF Jaguar ground attack aircraft is better than the A10 and the F-4 Phanton. the british Brimstone Missile is better than the Hellfire. the H&K G36 is the best assault rifle in the world. the SA80 A2 is among the best. the royal artillery's 105mm light gun is the best in the world the French GIAT Industries Caesar 155mm self propelled Howitzer is the most advanced in the world. the Royal Navy's Type 45 Destroyer, which will be ready in 2006, is the best air defence destoyer of the lot. the French Mirage 200 maritime fighter is well above the F-15, 16 and 18 league. the Franco-Italian AlphaJet is the second best light attack fighter in the world. the falklands war proved the BAE systems Sea Harrier, which has been updated several times since then, is the best STOVL jet in the world, so good that the USMC have bought them. even the humble light attack Land Rover 90 is more suited to its task than the Humvee, due to a more efficient, more powerful diesel engine. i could go on all day with a list of European technologies that ourperform their american counterparts, but i wont. i dont deny that the USA is very advanced as a nation, and as a military power, but you seem to be delusioned about how advanced your military really is.
"these figures are all wrong, if you are going to make am arguement, at least get your facts straight."
my facts are perfectly straight. i quoted my sources and i only used souces i myself trust. as far as i am aware, all the organisations above are well respected for their truthfulness and lack of bias, except possibly the CIA.
before you comment, it always helps if you read everyone elses comments, and get a feel for the arguement, rather than just jumping in at the deep end. if you have read the comments, you are still in denial as to the truth: Europe has the upper hand. we have more, well trained troops, more tanks, more aircraft, more up-to-date ships, a larger defence industry complex, a larger GNP, greater access to military manpower, higher overall productivity, less reliant on oil imports, colonial treaties which give countries like Britain the support of the old Dominions armed forces, better relations with the rest of the world and in many areas we have better technology. the european armies also include some of the world's best fighting forces: the SAS , the Royal Marines, the French Foreign Legion , the Desert Rats, the Black Watch, the Ghurkas, the Parachute Regiment, les Chausseurs Alpins , the Royal Artillery , the Royal Irish Regiment, 16 Air Assault Brigade , the italian navy's COM-SUB, the SBS, and, in russia, the Spetznaz . this is to name but a few of our highly Elite forces. Also, when examining my statistics, bare in mind that i have only included NATO europe, not Russia or the rest of non-NATO europe. Russias population centres are technically in europe. dont forget that having russia on our side means more access to manpower, aircraft, ships and a truely massive advantage in tanks . it is a statistical European victory.
however, as i have said in previous comments, it would not be quite as simple as that. my guess is any invasion of europe by the USA, or of the USA by europe, would fail. logistics, high cost and massive casualties would be the cause of withdrawal. uneasy peace might then follow.
as i have said, i depends what you mean by 'take on.' we would sucessfully repel an invasion by america, but any invasion by us on american soil would be soundly thrashed aswell.
why do you think some people would side with the USA? some of us are anti-european, but not traitorously so.
"Ireland Neutral"
agreed.
"Britain For Europe"
yup, bring it on. hehe.
"France For Europe
Germany For Europe"
true.
"Denmark Neutral
Norway Neutral
Sweden Neutral"
i disagree. if it became clear that the USA had plans to invade in europe, they would fall in behind the rest of us. in an agression against america, they would remain neutral until threatened.
"Russia For Europe"
agreed
"Poland Neutral
Spain Neutral"
Poland and spain would most definately side with their buddies France and Germany, although the spannish dont like the british much, due to the Gibraltar thing, and so there would be a liiiitle friction.
"Italy Not sure"
no question that italy would side with europe. they have no american sympathies, like ireland, for example, have.
"Also since European nations combined America would get China and Japans aid as well as S. Korea
The French are cowards and would back down."
it is interesting that you bring up the international consequences.
i think China and Japan would stay neutral. China is isolationist, and japan would not risk another war, not after the scars of WWII, unless the pacific theatre threatened their territory was threatened.
if you want countries who would side with Britain, and so with europe, here is a list:
Canada
Australia
South Africa
India
Pakistan
Cuba
Bangladesh
New Zealand
Burma
Vietnam
Mongolia
these are mainly big commonwealth nations, and so have a diplomatic obligation to help Britain out in a major war. it happened like this: the major colonies wanted independance like the USA got, but rather than give them total independance, while not making the american mistake again, we gave them Dominion status, which granted them a certain degree of self government, but not total independance, as they still payed homage to Britain. when the empire broke up, these countries were never given formal independance, and so they are, to this day, still effectively under British control. they are headed by a governor, appointed by the British monarch and her parliament, who has the power to make law, disband their paliament, and block decisions by their parliament. the Dominions also turn over control of their armed forces to Britain in times of serious crisis . .
the British empire is not a mere piece of history; it has been kept alive in the British Commonwealth. we, through skillful diplomacy and global leniency, have made ourseves many loyal allies.
also, going back to a previous comment "Nah i still doubt Europe could take on America. America is the most impossible country to invade. I feel some europeans nations would side with America rather than Europe"
why is the USA impossible to invade? with its vast borders, i would imagine an invasion could be staged very easily. indeed, a general in charge of home defence of the west during WWII coast remarked that, with all almost american forces deployed in the pacific thousands of miles away, and all amunition being shipped out to them, rather than being used to supply national guard units, a japanese attack on US soil would would have been a resounding sucess. but that was WWII. times have changed. i belive, as you do, that although i think landing troops on US soil would be relatively easy if done with proper British precision, sustaining such a force would be a different cup of tea; an almost impossible feat of logistics, and military defeat of the invaders would be impossible.
"yes america would would be impossible to invade here are my reasons"
"1.) huge nation. if you somehow got past therir navy it would be like omaha beach. except worse."
a huge nation is a disadvantage. D-day showed this. the coast of france was too long to defend, and the allies had the NAZI high command believe the attack was coming in calais. would the europeans not try the same thing? leak that they were attacking in chesapeak but attack in Rhode Island? a large country is easy to attack, but it makes an attack more difficult to sustain.
"2.)America spends more than the next 20 nations combined on there military. also they have a shit load of technology."
this has already been debated over and over. technology is not a decisive factor when western powers are fighting. differences in technology on both sides of the lake are now barely considerable, as i said in a previous post. we have some technology that is superior to the US tech.
"3.) Civilians are armed. If you think Iraq is bad with civilians attacking USA/Britains men then you havn't seen nothing."
the americans put a higher value on life than the iraqis, and are not so easy to rally to a cause as arabs are. the "insurgents" are taken advantage of by leaders such as Al-Sadr. this would not happen in the USA. also, the iraqis have acess to weapons such as automatic rifles. these are illegal in most states of the US. you cannot defeat a properly organised, well equipped fighting force with a group of gunslingers with .38s. it doesnt work like that any more.
"4.)Europe wouldn't make it across to Atlantic. trust me"
i dont buy this. true, the US navy is vast, and superior to the navies of europe, but we are not paper tigers. the US navy was smaller than the japanese navy in WWII, but got defeated by better tactics. besides, most of the US navy is in the pacific and the indian ocean/arabian gulf, not the north atlantic.
"Also no 1 would want to risk war with the USA as they know it would be folly"
what about Hussein? Bin Laden? Ho Chi Mihn? Mao Zedong? Hitler? Hirohito? Muhammad Fara-Adid? the list of countries who messed with america is endless, and though most of them were defeated, it just went to show that the USA is no superpower, but merely has a good military. what makes a good superpower is the ability to make nations tremble on the diplomatic table. Hussein stood firm in the face of blatent threats from the USA, he did not tremble. France and Britain were superpowers 100 years ago. the USA was for about 20 years after WWII, until Vietnam, when everyone lost faith in their abilities. the days of the superpower are over.
as i have said, it is my belief that a big country would be easy to invade, but that the invasion would ultimately fail. Russia in WWII and in 1812 showed this.
"despite all these "Facts" these are just predictions. time after time America has suprised the whole world and no 1 has seen the full force of their fury. America would still win in my opinion"
ok. that is your opinion. in my opinion, noone would win. invasions would be repelled, navies damaged, cities destroyed, millions killed, and nothing would come of it.
suprised the world? like in Korea? Vietnam? Cuba? Iraq?
please, you are a sensible person. you must be able to see that the days of the superpower are over now. no country, no matter how big, is stronger than patriotism, religion and the will of peoples. the US forces may be strong in a conventional war, but no stronger than other devolloped nations, and when up against guerilla tactics, they are utterly stumped. the above wars, especially Vietnam and the recent Iraq war, demonstrated this.
give me a break, usa has more forces stationed in europe than most european countrys, and don't know where you got those figures, try tripling them in us's favor
by USMC on Fri Aug 20, 04 3:09pm
[+]
"n e 1 against a gurilla warfare army always gets stumped. Take The Nazi's for example they couldn't beat out the Norwegian resistance. Your British government was "Stumped" by the IRA. There is no shame in not being able to take one out because everyone always gets stumped. America is the only superpower now. No 1 country in the world can beat America by themselves."
i take your point, guerilla armies often are tough nuts to crack, but i remind you that the British army creamed the communist uprising in Burma in the 1960s. having said this, everyone has fallen to guerilla tactics in the past, just look at our shite fighting in the first Boer war. embarassing. lol.
"give me a break, usa has more forces stationed in europe than most european countrys, and don't know where you got those figures, try tripling them in us's favor"
no, you give me a break. that was true 20 years ago, but now is not true. bush is pulling much of your overstretched military out of Europe, especially out of germany.
i ask you again: what is wrong with the figures i have provided? they come from reliable sources which i and other trust, Janes Defence, Britainnia, the CIA and Hutchisons encyclopaedia. if i didnt trust them, i wouldnt have been so bold as to quote them, let alone create a whole ballot around them. you say tripple them? ridiculous. since when has the USA had 4.5 million armed forces? 270 warships? 27 carriers? 24 000 battle tanks? you make me laugh.
the only stats up there i fiddled were the european ones: i deliberately didnt include light strike aircraft , because we have a truely ridiculous amount of them , and we do not have enough pilots, although more could be trained in an emergency.
if you can some up with more autoritative stats, and can quote your sources, then go ahead, and i will stand corrected.
"No 1 country in the world can beat America by themselves."
this is a dengerous opinion to hold. that is exactly what we thought before WWI and WWII: and in both those wars we had allies. look what a struggle those two little debacles were. do not assume omnipotence before your power has been truely put to the test: we were proved wrong twice.
you cannot say with any authority how well the USA would fare in a war, unaided, with a western power, because it hasnt happened since 1812.
you may be right british bloke about the figures you quoted, sorry , I should have done more research before commented
by USMC on Sat Aug 28, 04 12:33pm
[+]
no problem, USMC. like i said, i wouldnt have based a ballot around them if i didnt trust them. appologies for my strong response to your comment.
what are your thoughts on "europe vs USA" ?
Europeans hate each other.They can't unite.So we would win.Americans would unite once it comes to war just like now every single American hates French.
"Europeans hate each other.They can't unite.So we would win.Americans would unite once it comes to war just like now every single American hates French."
what about the EU? we have our differences, and will never be a single nation, but in the face of crisis, we would put asside our differences and unite.
it is only really the UK who dont agree with the rest of europe anyway, as we dont like getting talked down to by germans and frogs.
270 fighters, what are you smoking. Besides, the US air power is more technologically dominant. But you are missing the point. In a war between Europe and the US, China wins as they take over as superpower while we kill each other.
Also, British have great aircraft but at night you can't see our bombers or the new F-22 fighters. Might be a problem.
Don't forget US attack subs either.
I wonder how Germany would rush to the aid of France. Maybe by stationing troops in Paris. haha
haha, Canada would not side with Europe. If only for their own survival. You know how easy it would be for the US to take out Canada. If they were on your side they would only be there for a few days and I disagree with Japan and Austrailia. Japan is one of our best allies and I'm not so sure Austrailia would go for Europe. At best probably neutral.
difference between D-day and an American invasion: Distance and technology. You're not crossing the channel you're crossing the ocean. And the US has so many buried sonar stations and satelites we'd see you coming.
without a doubt America would win. The British may have some good special forces but in the end America has more Tech and better equipment. Besides We are the most powerfull nation in the world now
"270 fighters, what are you smoking. Besides, the US air power is more technologically dominant."
like i have said many times before, i have included dual role fighter in the "bombers/ground attack" catagory, in wich the USA has a clear advantage.
"Also, British have great aircraft but at night you can't see our bombers or the new F-22 fighters. Might be a problem."
actually, the stealth bomber and the F-22 can be picked up and targeted by the new Ango Italian Samson RADAR, which is like Aegis, only it works. so, no great advantage in those.
"Don't forget US attack subs either."
you think we dont have submarines? if you look at the stats, we have more. differences in technology are negligable: a sub is a sub.
"I wonder how Germany would rush to the aid of France. Maybe by stationing troops in Paris. haha"
lol, and the french could cheer them again.
"haha, Canada would not side with Europe. If only for their own survival. You know how easy it would be for the US to take out Canada. If they were on your side they would only be there for a few days and I disagree with Japan and Austrailia. Japan is one of our best allies and I'm not so sure Austrailia would go for Europe. At best probably neutral."
canada would probably stay neutral, its true, but other parts of the commonwealth and empire would rush to Britain's aid. not too sure about Aus, though, they dont like us all that much these days, lol.
"difference between D-day and an American invasion: Distance and technology. You're not crossing the channel you're crossing the ocean. And the US has so many buried sonar stations and satelites we'd see you coming."
which is why i maintain that any invasion of either state by either power would fail.
"without a doubt America would win. The British may have some good special forces but in the end America has more Tech and better equipment. Besides We are the most powerfull nation in the world now"
you forget that the technological gap is now virtually nonexistant. the europeans have more tech now than 30 years ago, indeed i could give you a huge list of European military equipment that out classes its US counterpart.
your turn, lol.
My turn heh, first of all sorry about the fighter thing, I was writing responses as I read. However, I've been to Edwards and personally seen at least 150-200 fighters there so I have a hard time seeing those numbers. Also, a sub is not a sub. During the Cold War the US subs would shadow Soviet ones without them even knowing we were there. There was a US sub near the Kursk when it blew and the SeaWolfs are an incredibly effective sub. Second main advantage is that the US can put factories and farms deep in the heart of the US which is a long ways away from any shore. Also, answer me this, if you are so confident that commonwealth nations would fight for you why do you not think Japan and South Korea would fight for the US. Of course you are right about invasions. There is no way to get enough troops across the Atlantic, either way, without attracting the attention of the other side. However, I have a proposition for you. I think the US, Britain, and Canada could take the rest of the EU. Come on, wouldn't you like to get France back after losing it in the 100 years war. What do you think?
Lastly, define "win"
ok, i appreciate that subs have various degrees of effectiveness, but the days when the european nations bought out-of-date soviet and US cast-off are over: most european NATO navies have a high tech nuclear sub fleet, such as the new german "U" fleet, and the British Astute class subs .
europe can also move her factories, even hide them. with todays guided missiles and satalite targetting, inland factories do not hold so much of an advantage as they did, say, 50 years ago.
the reason i think the empire would side with Britain is that thjey have done so in the past, throughout two world wars they stood by us, and this is what won them their independance and the respect of the British nation. they are obliged under defensive treaties to help the motherland in times of crisis, whereas the relationship between the US, Japan and Korea is less cut and dried. they have similar interests, ie free trade, industry etc, but no real treaties. it is my belief that they would try and stay out of any conflict that did not concern them, as they would not risk their hides again after WWII and the Korean war.
"However, I have a proposition for you. I think the US, Britain, and Canada could take the rest of the EU. Come on, wouldn't you like to get France back after losing it in the 100 years war. What do you think?"
now this is interesting.
like during WWII, Britain would be a vital staging area for invading mainland europe, and so an invasion of europe would not be out of the question. there is no doubting the strength of this alliance: the numbers of the USA combined with the elite training and productivity of canada and the UK, but then the rest of the EU would be no pushover. the French and the germans have armies that almost rival the British in terms of training and are excellently equipped. also, their airforces are extremely good, and have much the same planes as the British: TOnados and Eurofighters, wich are both excellent. France's navy is no laughing matter either: they have a nuclear powered aicraft carrier, a high tech nuclear sub fleet, and top notch Rafael maritime strike aicraft.
as in WWII, the British and US navies would have to defend Britain, because small raids and airsrikes by the europeans would be difficult to defend against and very damaging to British production. there would be another air war, which without US help, the British would definately loose this time.
like WWII, we would have to wait until the europeans were on the brink of defeat defore mounting another D-day, but it would be possible, with constant airraids and commando raids. the cost of the war would be huge, in terms of both casualties and money, on both sides. i think the US/Canada/UK could win, but at a cost. if russia got involved on the EU's side, then we would not stand a chance of invading Europe, Britain might be "Neutralised," and the americans and canadians sent home with their tail between their legs. your thoughts?
yeah the hundred years war was a bit of a bastard. we did win nearly all of the battles, and held france for a good 40 years, but then the king died and his replacement was a bit of a looser, and so we had to withdraw. next time, frog-eaters, next time. hehe.
and by "Win" i mean force the other side into unconditional surrender, and possibly leading to sanctions and occupation, much like WWII germany.
Actually, in reality I don't think the war would end with either side getting an unconditional surrender. In the end I can't see any situation where the divide between the US and Europe would be so great that one side would be willing to sacrifice what would be needed to force the other side into that type of surrender. I don't know if either side would agree to that type of surrender barring an invasion. I guess the only way to instigate this is in ballot 48786. Good talking British Bloke.
British Bloke, those numbers are just ridiculous! The USA spends nearly $400 billion dollars on defense. You are lumnping all of Europe into one category, which is just as ridiculous. First of all, almost all of the NATO equipment is American. Secondly, fighters are classified as figter jets, such as the F-15, F-16, etc. Of those, we have thousands. You also leave out submarines in the sense that our nuclear subs alone are armed with enough missles to take out almost all of Europe...that's just one submarine! Dude, I really don't mean to be rude, but this is not a good ballot because you have some real, realy bad numbers. Sorry!
Hey Bloke: Here are the real numbers, just on fighter Jets alone. GO to the web and do the research...the real research!
F-16: Inventory: Active force, 744; Air National Guard, 355; Reserve, 92.
F-15: Inventory: Active force, 523; Reserve, 200; ANG, 45
F-15 Strike Eagle: Inventory: Active force, 401; ANG, 90; Reserve, 124
F-22 Raptor: Inventory: Active: More than 700.
F-117A-Stealth Fighter: Inventory: Active force, 254; ANG, 0; Reserve, 109
Oh, and I just pulled the numbers on just a FEW of our fighter jets!
Bloke, I'm sorry, but are a liar! I went to the CIA site and they do NOT give military capability information. Go to the GAO like I did. First of all, you are one of those guys who not only makes stuff up, but you do not have the brain to figure out data! EUROPE is NOT fully united. You know what, I apologize, I'm just not going to get into this with you. This is a stupid poll presented by a complete incompetent nit wit.
"British Bloke, those numbers are just ridiculous! The USA spends nearly $400 billion dollars on defense. You are lumnping all of Europe into one category, which is just as ridiculous."
this war is hypothetical. is is obsurd trying to link it to real life situations, as it is never going to happen.
"First of all, almost all of the NATO equipment is American."
and thus the other half is european. what's your point?
"Secondly, fighters are classified as figter jets, such as the F-15, F-16, etc. Of those, we have thousands."
so do we, and many european aircraft out-class the ageing F-15.
"You also leave out submarines in the sense that our nuclear subs alone are armed with enough missles to take out almost all of Europe...that's just one submarine! "
bollocks. one submarine hold about 16-20 missilea, and each missile holds 12 warheads. one submarine could not destroy the whole of europe. a nuclear war would not break out, because Britain and France would simply fire back, and dont pull that "oh but the americans control the British nukes." it is not true. the figures i quoted include balistic subs.
"Hey Bloke: Here are the real numbers, just on fighter Jets alone. GO to the web and do the research...the real research!"
i did. how many times have i said that the "pure fighters" i have included in the "fighter aicraft" category, and the dual or swing role fighters i have included in the "bombers/ground attack." notice the american superiority in numbers.
"Oh, and I just pulled the numbers on just a FEW of our fighter jets!"
i also failed to mention that the european air forces and fleet air arms have over 12 000 Alphajets and Hawks, which are in storage. the are simple aircraft to operate, so it would not take long to train the necessary pilots.
"Bloke, I'm sorry, but are a liar! I went to the CIA site and they do NOT give military capability information."
i never said they did. i merely drew my manpower capability from the CIA.
"First of all, you are one of those guys who not only makes stuff up, but you do not have the brain to figure out data!"
please, dont insult me. have i been unreasonable at any time?
"This is a stupid poll presented by a complete incompetent nit wit."
ditto.
"EUROPE is NOT fully united. "
neither is the USA. as i remember it, you had a biiiiig problem with protests and draught evasion during 'nam.
i didnt ask for your insults. this is a perfectly sensible ballot, based on solid evidence from reliable sources. if you can dispute it, go ahead, if you cant, please think before you comment.
usa is always going to be dominate because we fight for what we believe in everyother country fights because they are told!!!
|
|
