COMMENTS:
As the founders of western civilisation and philosophy, we reserve the right to critisise the new world for its, how shall we say, short comings. If countries were like people, we would remember that the very young are often impetuous and are quick to judge that which they do not understand.
And should that not suffice, because you produce a large number of people like Ballot #78264
Perhaps it's because us Euro-users fully understand that we live in superior countries? Because unlike America, we don't have high rates of stupidity, gun crimes, or laughable rates of obesity.
Guy its more because of jealousy. If there was a country better than the United States i would be mad to. Dont worry about them they run there mouths but thats only over the computer. Its sad the United States military is stronger than the Europian Union which is basically all of Europe. Its all kids stuff. There are a lot of cool Europians on here but a lot are just trying to be funny. And for xyriach he can shut his mouth cause hes just another jealous person of how our young, most wealthy and most beatiful country is more intelligent than his country is. xyriach which country was the light bulb, television, car, electricity all invented. And thats nothing compared to the other inventions made in america.
lmfao, US_MarineCorp69, I swear to God you just made me laugh.
First of all, it is scientific fact that the US's average IQ is lower than most countries in Europe. Don't believe me? Look it up.
Secondly, the European army is different from the combination of Europe's armies. It is an army set up by France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg, and is a rapid reaction force. And let's be honest now: do you really think that the US army could take on the combined forces of the UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Turkey, Austria, Poland, Norway, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Finland, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Ukraine, Romania, Croatia, Slovakia, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Belarus, Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Lithuania, Cyprus, Iceland, Latvia, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Albania, Malta, Macedonia, Georgia, Armenia, and Moldova?
Some of the richest and most powerful countries in the world are in Europe. The US couldn't hope to win against so many countries.
And that final sentence made me laugh so damn hard: "which country was the light bulb, television, car, electricity all invented". You say it as if it was the US. The lightbulb, television and car were all inveted in BRITAIN, you tool. And electricity? It was first discovered in GREECE a couple of millenia before your silly little country came into existence, and was first properly explained and understood in the UK. And other inventions made in America? The only invention America actually invented is powdered milk. And for any US citizen, how fucking depressing is that.
Voted : coz it gets a reaction
In General, it is best to let them say what ever they please and then ignore it. It takes a far wiser man to disregard and not entertain the antics of Euro-trash.
Well, we know we're right anyhow.
Because it pisses them off that we largely ignore them. They stomp their little euro feet in hopes of getting attention. Europe was an important part of our past but not our future. Europe has increasing irrelevance to more and more Americans. Most of our immigrants are comming from Asia and Latin America. These people don't give a damn about europe. Our economic future lies much more with Asia. Europe is quickly becomming a distant memory.
^Not quite true, our economy is expanding at a considerable rate, and the EU is helping Europe to becoming a prominent military force as a whole.
If the Chinese or Russians declare war with the US in the future (not as unlikely as it sounds), the first place the US will turn to is the EU, no doubt.
Europe is still powerful, and will most certainly remain so.
"our economy is expanding at a considerble rate" Well if 1.5% growth a year is considerable for you then thats fine. Don't forget the fact that the Eu economy is growing cause it keeps tacking on little countires, not to mention europe will begin a population freefall, sorry but it is true
Population will have little effect, we will still remain a major military power. Right now the EU could take on Russia and China combined without US intervention; Russia and China suck in so many ways right now, especially Russia.
the EU could not take on Russia..that would be a dumb move..the US and Russia have multi-megaton nuclear warheads that if detonated 300 miles above the surface of earth would fry every piece of electronic equipment in an area the size of europe. China sure. If no nukes then maybe Russia. The Eu is not the strong and has a huge possibility of falling apart at any sense of trouble. Many of the countries in Europe have no intention of ever getting into a war. Sweden, Luxembourg, Denmark..I could easily name 10 more. They are also major economic chunks of the EU..they would never fight in a war and would run from any possibility of one. britian should stick with its commonwealth
^I would like to see more Union witht he Commonwealth than the EU... would certainly be better as we have better relations with all those countries anyway, plus more in common and many would be ready to fight. I don't like the fact that many EU countries run away from some necessary wars, I hope that they are of some help if something like World War 3 happens (which it just might).
But lets face it, Europe is a powerful military force due to there being so many superpowers there. Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy... all countries have powerful militaries, especially the first 3.
Every country you listed there is considered a world power not a super power. Look it up. It would be a powerful force you are correct, but you must realise that there is not a single EU military just some stupid self defense force that is more symbollic than anything else. The Eu has a long way to go. Could it take on china, or russia? I imagine so. Would it win..maybe maybe not. Could it take on the US? I seriously doubt it. All of Europe spends less than half of what the US spends on its military. The US government unlike Europe is built around the military. The President is the commander in chief..Senators approve of Officers like the ancient romans, Generals often become Senators, it goes on and on.
While the official definition states only the top country is a superpower, its use is quite different. Superpowers are now just the top few countries, in terms of military strength, economy, influence and nuclear strength, and has been used in reference to modern day America, Britain and France to name a few.
I would NOT reccommend taking the official definition as the last say - use your initiative. Did you know that the OFFICIAL language of Ireland is Irish, yet only 5% of Ireland speaks Irish yet over 99% speaks English?
Did you know that the OFFICIAL language of the US isn't English either, and you technically have no official language? And how many people speak English in America? What do you see primarily on tv, in your movies and in music, etc.? English.
Did you know that the official definition of the tentacles on an octupus isn't actually tentacles, but actually arms? And how many millions of people refer to them as tentacles?See my point?
You see, terms change and official definitions are not always accurate in relation to the modern day. Basically, it is perfectly true to refer to those countries as superpowers.
Anyway, Britain's military is strong enough to tackle either Russia's military or China's military on its own. China and Russia are far weaker than you think.
Bring the whole of either country under control? No way. That would take North America, Australasia and Europe combined to control the WHOLE place with any sort of authority. In the same respect, the US could not control the whole of Europe; not a chance in hell. Maybe a country or two, but you simply cannot commit enough forces to the area to hold them for any length of time.
lemming..the widely accepted view of a superpower is a set standard in economics, military and cultural strength. There were only two after WWII up until 1990. The USSR and the USA. Thats it. The USSR fell. Once there is only 1 superpower left, it is automatically bumped up to a "hyperpower" a term coined by the French. One another super power arrives the hyperpower is lowered to a superpower again.(and ther can be more than 2 superpowers) If china comes around the US will be considered a superpower. I did not make this up by the way, the French did, but they used it as an insult to the US. I think Chirac started it. Why is the US considered a superpower/"hyperpower" because it spends more on its military than the entire world combine, it is the most famous country due to an empire of cultural dominance, and an economy that will hit 14 trillion before 2008. In second is Japan with 4 trillion. This is the only definition of a superpower I have ever known. First time I am hearing your version.
Well, that is the definition of superpower I have heard, and I have heard modern day Britain and France called it many times.
You aren't the only great power in this world, there are other extremely powerful countries out there, whether you respect them or not. I mean, for all their problems, the French are influential in the world today... not as much as they think, but still, they are powerful.
Voted : It's the same from both sides of the pond
"Europe has increasing irrelevance to more and more Americans. Most of our immigrants are comming from Asia and Latin America. These people don't give a damn about europe. Our economic future lies much more with Asia. Europe is quickly becomming a distant memory." by mindy.
I hope that not all Americans think like that because that is a very ignorant thing to say. You can't just assume that because you are the only superpower that no one else is important in the world, you thought like that before 9/11 and see what you got for that type of thinking. 9/11 happened because your government was ignorant to the rest of the world and it assumed that because your the biggest no one could touch you. So you got a good short, sharp shock by a few people from a small country. It just proves that no matter how big and powerful you are, you are still vulnerable to attack just like any other nation on the planet.
What i said above was blunt and i meant no offence by it but i think the US is now a better country because of 9/11, it was a real wake up call for you and showed you what it is like to be attacked and also showed you what the rest of the world is or has been through.
As for the ballot... Well i see a lot of bashing coming from both sides of the pond and i don't think it's because of jealiousy, envy or anything else, wishful thinking on your part i'm afread. Most of the countries in Europe have been through the "i'm the biggest and the strongest" phase and we see history repeating itself a bit in the way that the US conducts itself and compairs itself to other countries.
*afraid.
Lemming, i'm British as you know and i certainly think, from my experience with the force, that the UK could never take on the military might of either Russia or China on it's own. The British army is the best fighting force in the world but with a fight like that it is simple numbers and with have far to few, sorry.
The British army is the best fighting force in the world but with a fight like that it is simple numbers and WE have far to few, sorry.
^We could without a doubt take out their navy and airforce, however.
Take a look at the Chinese airforce. Apart from 300 "flanker" planes, nothing they have can compete with any potential threat coming from neighbouring countries - ie, India, Taiwan and South Korea all field superior aircraft. And we have superior again. The Chinese planes are very poor and the pilots aren't very well trained, even the flanker planes are nothing special. It wouldn't be particularly hard to take control of the skies from them, providing we get a foothold from neighbouring countries.
Same thing for the Russian airforce; they have the numbers, but their airforce is poor.
As for the navies of these countries, again they couldn't stand up to ours. Russia's navy has barely a few more main warships than we do, and they're very poor quality. Some are even old world war 2 designs, they still use battlecruisers, which are very worn I think.
Granted, they do have a considerable fleet of submarines, but, they're old, poorly manned and inferior to ours. Plus, our type 23 frigates have quite possibly the best anti-submarine technology in the world.
Also, the Russians have no minelayers, only minesweepers. Their loss.
China does have a considerable fleet though... some modern ships, and lots of destroyers and frigates. They'd be much more of a challenge.
Although, with the Type 45 helping us to obtain air superiority, we can launch strikes on these ships with ease from our carriers. China doesn't have carriers of any sort yet; these ships would most likely be confined to their ports and close to the coast, where they can be covered by their airforce. They most likely wouldn't risk any major sea confrontations.
I would say though that we couldn't have a total victory over either country, no way at all. They have way too many. Both have millions in their armies, and I know that Russia has over 23,000 tanks. But, besides manpower, their armies are inferior in every single way; their weapons are nothing compared to ours, their equipment is inferior, their training is rubbish in comparison. Their tanks are the Challenger's lessers in every way - they would struggle to even damage a single Challenger 2, whereas we could take down hundreds of theirs, given time.
All we could do is weaken them, maybe capture small areas of their land and hold it for a while... we couldn't crush them, but they couldn't get anywhere near doing the same to us. We would technically win; we'd have done more damage to their militaries, their infrastructure, and generally come out on top.
So while it wouldn't be a complete victory, it'd still be a victory nonetheless.
I'd like to point out that the Russian military is practically broke, and are facing serious problems at the moment, with funds, training, moral, leadership, and co-ordination. If we attacked, they would struggle to organise, and wouldn't be able to mount a proper defence. They'd be easy to weaken, very easy, especially compared to China and India.
lemming your over confidence will be your downfall. Yes Russias military is in shambles, but their airforce would dominate you. Their migs are ok, but their Flankers are 3rd generation just like the eurofighter. Only they have more, but with also good pilots. They have the 3rd largest airforce under china then USA. I dont believe you would be able to invade Russia. They would absolutely defeat you because they would outnumber you 10 to 1. Your only clear advantage is naval, but they have many more subs than you. As for your amazing type 45's or so you say you dont even have 1 yet so your claims are kinda pointless. Keep in mind it is much easier to develope a weapon to counter a technology such as the type 45 than it is to make something better. The US military knows that which is why is has a mind blowing variety in munitions. Your right about china though, they stand no chance. But even if you did invade Russia just one of their powerful nukes droped dead smak in the middle of your island would make it unihabitable for half a century or more.
lemming the type 45 destroyer isnt eve nthat good. It has no land attack capability, it has no ship to ship capability aside from its 1 deck gun. Its anti sub warfare is limited. The only the it really has is air defense. It is goood but only in certain aspects
First of all, our planes are superior to theirs by a considerable way.
Their pilots are actually quite poor, they receive inferior training to our pilots. Their defence branch doesn't provide them with training of a very high standard.
As for the Type 45, 2 have been launched and will be fitted soon. In a few years we'll have between 6-8, before they can develop anything to attack it efficiently with.
Also, their airforce doesn't really possess anything that could damage it, seen as it's so efficient at shooting down missiles and planes from great distances while they travel at great speeds.
They have many more subs, but as with every other vehicle they use, they are old, greatly inferior to what we possess, and are poorly manned compared. We also have 13 Type 23 frigates, which have arguably the best anti-submarine technology in the world. Not to mention that every frigate and destroyer we have can take helicopters which are excellent at taking out subs.
Plus our Type 45 can take anti-sub weaponry.
I would still say we have a chance against Russia. Not a brilliant chance, but there are ways to defeat them.
As for the Type 45, it doesn't come fitted with ship-to-ship, anti-sub or ship-to-land capabilities, but it has room to place some very high quality weaponry on its decks. There are no plans for that as none of our enemies field especially good navies, but should there come a time when they are needed (such as this hypothetical war) then they can be quickly fitted.
As for the nuke thing, we do have our own Trident nuclear deterent. And if they did nuke us, I doubt it'd wipe out the whole country, seen as Japan was nuked twice and 125 million people still live there.
well japan was bombed with kiloton class a-boms. The Russians have megaton class. I think the bombs dropped on Japan, were about 10 kilotons at the most, something like that. Russia once made a nuke that was 50 megatons. That is about 50,000 times more powerful. However the Russian military has been slipping badly. China in my oppinion is a joke.
I'm not being harsh Lemmming but i think you have little knowledge on warfare, i think this because of your obsession with the Challenger 2, which leads me to believe that you think a war is won just by rolling hundreds of tanks over the border and the fact that you can't tell the difference between the bombs dropped on Japan than the warheads that a good proportion of nations possese today, yields that would make the Hiroshima bombs look like fireworks, As USRocks said, something in the region of 50,000 times the yield.
It's all very well getting the new type 45's but they are only replacing some of the old type 42's which are getting either scrapped, sold off or moth balled and if i remember rightly, we are going to have less destroyers in a few years than we have now, its ridiculious.
I have seen the new fighters Russia has developed and i think they are on par with anything the US has, no matter how ferociously USRocks will deny it in a minute :P lol. Russia is a spent power, however, they don't give two shits on what the international community thinks of them so i reckon they wouldn't think twice about nuking us (which is where our nations fail so miserably because we do care about the media and international reactions). The only thing they will think about is what they might be recieving in return. It wouldn't wipe out the entire country but a good 75% of it. would be inhabitable.
" I have seen the new fighters Russia has developed and i think they are on par with anything the US has, no matter how ferociously USRocks will deny it in a minute"
lol well since you already know my oppinion I wont go there. Russia has made the most powerful nukes ever built. This is because they were never to good at making accurate icbm's. The US i believe only ever made nukes that were 35 megatons at the most. The Russians made one that was borderline 50 megatons. If One of those bombs was dropped in Britian, the country would be absolutely wasted, and every single piece of electronic equipment in at least western europe would be fried. The thign that scares me is the breakup of the USSR. Now all the Soviet Bloc countries have nukes, and they dont even watch them.I would take the USSR any day over what is their now.
Well, I do actually have a good knowledge of warfare. I never said that wars are won with tanks - if you actually read what I was saying before, I said we would have to beat them at sea and in the air. I said that we could not win by land, so i don't know where the hell you got that from.
Although it is true what I said about the Challenger 2 taking out many of their tanks. Their tanks on the whole are useless, apart from about 60 modern ones which still aren't on a par with ours.
But as I said before, we'd have to beat them at sea and in the air.
As for the Type 45's, yes we'll be having even less destroyers which is daft, but they will be better than anything any other country fields or will field for years, and would be a huge help in taking control of the seas and air.
As for the difference between the Hiroshima bomb and the ones we have now, I did know there was a difference, just I didn't know
how big a difference there was.
I have a decent knowledge of the world's militaries, not the nukes they have. Non-nuclear theoretical wars are much more interesting than when nukes are involved, so I never really look into how powerful they are.
I seriously doubt they'd go and nuke us anyway - they would know that we'd do it back, as would the US, not to mention possible invasions for it. Doubt they'd be willing to do that, they'd try and drag China into the war before they go nuking anyone.
And OK, the Su-47 is extremely good, as good if not better than the F-22. However, it's only experimental - apparently there's only one built at the moment.
Their current planes all seem to be made in the early 70's, and none are particularly good. Hundreds of their planes first came into service in the early 50's for crying out loud. We could cripple their airforce, so long as our carriers are protected.
"Su-47 is extremely good, as good if not better than the F-22. However"
Dont make me laugh, F-22 is dominant to the point of being scary if a pilot were to lose his mind and go ona some sort of rampage. F-22 has no equal i am sorry but its true. su-47 was built to rival the f-15, after the russians saw that their mig stood no chance against it. By the way in a simulation with real aircraft a single f-22 took down 8 f-15's before they knew where it was.
It hasn't been directly tested against the F-22 yet, but it is designed to be, in the words of the article itself, "as advanced as the US F-22 Raptor and Eurofighter Typhoon, but must also compete for funding with the more conventional MiG 1.42."
So we don't know yet if it's as good as the F-22, but it's SUPPOSED to be as good. Apparently the test flights were very impressive.
Also, the F-22 was up against non-modernised F-15's when it took them down in the simulation, so they were at a disadvantage to start with. More modern planes could do much better, eg. the Eurofighter. It's not quite as good as the F-22, we all know that, BUT it wouldn't be blown to pieces by the F-22 unlike the F-15's. One Eurofighter was also able to take down a number of F-15's.
lemming you are making stuff up. Their is no russian plane that come close right now. You really need to read up on it cause i dont feel like explaing it to you. At least find the ratios of kills/deaths against even eurofighters. Lemming it is not in testing its in full productions, and if as been tested since before the year 2000. Against other aircraft for a few years. It is top notch.
I'm not making it up, BUT, yes, there aren't any Russian planes that come close right now. As I did actually say, if you could be bothered to read. I said it was an experimental plane atm, there's only 1 which is a prototype. No worries yet.
And yes the F-22 is the best, I've said before, I agree. But the Eurofighter and the x-35 could definitely hold their own against it, far better than the F-15's could. It's amazing, but not miles ahead. Just ahead.
no it is far and beyond. I am sorry but it has radar equal to an AWACS so powerful it can cook things right in front of it. It is faster than the eurofighter, smarter, easier to fly, and more stealthy than an f117 nighthawk. The Eurofighter is not a stealth aircraft, and before you say is has some stealth features built into it, so does the old soviet migs. It isnt even close to being called a stealth aircraft. The f-22 is the most expensive fighter ever created and its performance matches its price. Flying it is like a video game. Which makes pilot leathality skyrocket. It would detect eurofghters/ russian aircraft before the othere were even in range, not even counting stealth. I know you will have a fit about this but the f-22 is much greater quality than the Eurofihter which has parts assembled in multiple countries which reduces quality. The f-22 is built by lockheed martin in sealed and decontaminated rooms. They are making something like 2 to 3 a month now. The Eurofighter is good, but it better stick with going up against the aging eagle.
I agree with USRocks on this one though i'd like to know how he knows the F-22 and how and where it was built and developed, surely that would be classified, wouldn't it?
The Eurofighter is shit, do you know why, because the euros developed it with us. You have several countries developing parts for this aircraft, all of different quality and design. It should have been left to British engineers to develop and build the aircraft, if that happened it would have been the best aircraft in the world but unfortunatly the rest of Europe contaminated it's development with their shoddy attempts at engineering. I'd like to add that the Eurofighter was out of date when it went into mass production (US: your not the only country to moan about the euros you know lol).
The F-22 is the most advanced aircraft to date but i think USRocks over exaggerated a bit with his description, it is advanced but not as advanced as he makes it out to be, but it is certainly head and shoulders above to bloody Eurofighter! I mean the Eurofighter has never seen a battle since it went into service and we still prefere to use our Tornadoes, Harriers and Jaguars. I'd just hope you'd give us a few F-22's soon.
Lemming: I make my assumption on evidence not just from this ballot but a few others too, most notably the Challenger vs Abrams debate between you and USRocks which i clearly pointed out that the effectivness of a battle tank is insignificant when you can destroy a tank from three miles away with a Hellfire missile fired from an AH-64 Apache gunship and i think USRocks will agree with me on that one.
I didn't say that you think like that, i said that is the impression you give when you talk about tanks which makes me believe you think like that ;).
It's not far and beyond, it's considerably better I never denied that, but the Eurofighter could certainly hold its own against the F-22 no doubt about it. it is a top-quality plane, the F-22 could in no way simply walk over it.
And the Eurofighter is not outdated whatsoever, it is superior the every single plane on the planet bar the F-22. We use our other planes as they are competent and all round decent, but the Eurofighter is superior. Just because it was developed by several countries that doesn't mean it is bad.
The F-22 is not head and shoulders above it, it is undoubtedly a considerably superior plane but the Eurofighter is not actually a huge distance off.
Also I didn't even mention a bloody tank, how the hell has this come up in the conversation again??
The prowess of a tank doesn't matter when a plane attacks them, true, BUT, on the ground the Challenger 2 is superior. Remember that they wouldn't exactly have a free run at these things either, we do have many planes to keep things able to fire a hellfire missile at bay, along with other anti-air weapons and so on. It isn't like Iraq where we can pound them from the skies without them being able to do anything, they would be up against a first-class air power. They would have to run a gauntlet of many different forms of anti-air (anti-air on ships, Type 45, RAF, helicopters, AA tanks, AA guns, MANPAD's, launched missiles) just to get a shot at the tanks. High casualties are guarenteed on these kind of attacks, a war's length would depend on how long the US is willing to keep at it to whittle our forces down slowly.
All I'm saying with the tanks is NOT that they win wars, but that they are a huge help during a ground offensive - and we would have an edge on the ground because of that.
Just because they don't win wars outright doesn't mean they can be overlooked. It's one asset, so I like to mention it, along with the Type 45 and L85A2 as I'm sure you've noticed.
|
