Should Europe Go To War With America?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by el freako
Also remember that it was the british defence research agency that worked out how to track the US's stealth aircraft.

IIRC they can locate them to some degree (basically "there are stealth planes around") but without a realistic ability to actually target the plane, that's worthless.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by alva


If that aint a clear sign of the world getting civilised, I don't know what is.

How many mars missions and/or other fine things such as elimination of various diseases, hunger, dirty water, global pollution, etc would these combined numbers buy?

disease is going nowhere. u could eliminate hunger but as u raise the welfare state more ppl become dependant on it. ie if u gave veryone 50k for doing nothing, lots more ppl would do nothing.

most of the other things u suggest are vacuous holes unless u suggest imperialism. like throwing water into a leaking bathtub.

[el freako]

Originally posted by yavoon
first the EU 25 is united on NOTHING. much less willing to die side by side against america.

What would you call the single currency, sending one representative to the WTO to speak for the entire 25 coutries and common laws across the countries then?

Sure we are not as united as the US is now, but the integration is pretty impressive by historical standards - sure military unification is a joke now, but so was monetary unification, the absence of border controls and majority voting on european laws 25 years ago and they have all happened.
Also remember that the US was not very united in it's early decades either - it took nearly half a century for the federal government to be in charge of the army for instance (before the states each raised, paid for and controlled their own armies)

Originally posted by yavoon
second that bull**** u were refering to about how u can copy america in WWII. we were in a massive depression, had high unemployment, empty factories. and half the country(women) were doing nothing! europe has none of those.

Impressive doublethink by you there Yavoon, didn't you start this by saying

Originally posted by yavoon
maybe stop paying ppl to not work.

How can you reconcile what you said then to what you are saying now?

Originally posted by yavoon
third there is no political sentiment for attacking nething possibly including small rodents in europe. the entire continent has no balls(britain is not on the continent).

Rubbish, we have no desire to attack anyone because no-one is even remotely threatening us, as such we are just as gutless as the US was in the interwar period - but if the situation changes then so will we (as the US did).

Originally posted by yavoon
and hell while we're adding #'s. the US economy props the world up. u think other ppl are going to let u take what drives their export driven economies and throw missiles at it so we can't afford their products nemore? wtf is that.

China has added more to the world economy than the US has over the last 5 years (and more to world imports as well) - so I would say you are arguing using and erroneous assumption here

Originally posted by yavoon
u are totally and completely incapable in all but the most fantasy of lands where # of ppl=possible military strength. of even matching the US's military prowess. and u r most certainly all but inept at ever hoping to launch an invasion against america.

The same could be said of the US invading europe or asia in 1935 - I notice that you seem to ingnore the fact that as well as having more people than you we also have as large an economy (which is far more important).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by el freako


What would you call the single currency, sending one representative to the WTO to speak for the entire 25 coutries then?

Sure we are not as united as the US is now, but the integration is pretty impressive by historical standards - sure military unification is a joke now, but so was monetary unification, the absence of border controls and majority voting on european laws 25 years ago and they have all happened.
Also remember that the US was not very united in it's early decades either - it took nearly half a century for the federal government to be in charge of the army for instance (before the states raised, paid for and controlled the army)




Impressive doublethink by you there Yavoon, didn't you start this by saying



How can you reconcile what you said then to what you are saying now?



Rubbish, we have no desire to attack anyone because no-one is even remotely threatening us, as such we are just as gutless as the US was in the interwar period - but if the situation changes then so will we (as the US did).




China has added more to the world economy than the US has over the last 5 years (and more to world imports as well) - so I would say you are arguing using and erroneous assumption here



The same could be said of the US invading europe or asia in 1935 - I notice that you seem to ingnore the fact that as well as having more people than you we also have as large an economy (which is far more important).

added more? ur using very shaky statistical grounds again. ur obviously a habitual abuser of statistics.

the reason u have no military is u have no political will for any military beyond attrition defense. I assume if by some UNFORESEEN circumstance this changes then sure. u have a lot of ppl. then again ur argument is now based on some unnamed unforeseen circumstance. while mine is based on reality.


I dont understand what u even mean by doublethink(not the definition, ur usage). but I sed "stop paying ppl to do nothing" in reference to how much ur welfare state costs u. not in reference to how many of ur ppl are unemployed. tho obviously that kind of distinction is either beyond u or ur too disingenuous and flamehappy.

[el freako]

Originally posted by skywalker

IIRC they can locate them to some degree (basically "there are stealth planes around") but without a realistic ability to actually target the plane, that's worthless.

No, the system is not in place but it would work.

It requires using mobile phone transmitters to be used as lots of small radar emitters - this, coupled with a lot of computing power (but that was what made stealth possible in the first place) and good communications can make it possible to pinpoint stealth aircraft as well as we can pinpoint the non-stealth sort now.

[Chemical Ollie]

Any of the continents trying to invade the other would be preceeded by massive mobilisation of conscription armies and conversion of civil production to military on both sides. Comparing current military and industrial capabilites is not relevant.

The winner would be the side with the strongest combination of know-how, natural resources, manpower, determination and allies. And it would be a Phyrrus victory with WW1-scale casualties on both sides, followed by an eternal partisan war if one continent eventually manages to occupy the other. It would not be worth it, no matter how much mutual hatred we could whip up. I don't think, and don't hope, it would ever happen.

Perhaps someone should make a C3C-scenario about this?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The main problem is the US has veto power in the UNSC. After all, Europe would need UN approval to do this, right?

EU has two Vetos, US only one.

[joncha]

Sheeh. Everyone knows that our American boys will be home by Christmas.

Now were have I heard that sentiment before?

jon.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by skywalker


IIRC they can locate them to some degree (basically "there are stealth planes around") but without a realistic ability to actually target the plane, that's worthless.

Actually, it's not that hard. Just target the Mach 2 hummingbird.

[el freako]

Originally posted by yavoon
added more? ur using very shaky statistical grounds again. ur obviously a habitual abuser of statistics.

That's a classic - someone accusing me of abusing statistics!
You will notice that the vast majority of my posts are to point out when people have either misunderstood or misinterpreted statistics.

Originally posted by yavoon
the reason u have no military is u have no political will for any military beyond attrition defense.

True, just as the US has no desire or politucal will to make an enemy of europe.

You are in the same position as a kid who says "Well I could beat up my mum if I wanted to" - sure they could, why would they want to?

Originally posted by yavoon
I assume if by some UNFORESEEN circumstance this changes then sure. u have a lot of ppl. then again ur argument is now based on some unnamed unforeseen circumstance. while mine is based on reality.

Again your argument would be justified in assuming britian's contunued dominance as seen from 1880 - the world does change and the US is not really powerful enough to change it.

Originally posted by yavoon
I dont understand what u even mean by doublethink(not the definition, ur usage). but I sed "stop paying ppl to do nothing" in reference to how much ur welfare state costs u. not in reference to how many of ur ppl are unemployed. tho obviously that kind of distinction is either beyond u or ur too disingenuous and flamehappy.

Maybe you should make the distinction clear then (by, for example, actually saying that you were talking about the costs of the welfare state rather than bringing in 'people who don't work' into it.

But even so, the cost of our welfare state is around 10% of GDP more than in the US - but remember that the lack of universal healthcare causes 5% more of US gdp to be spent privately that is done so in europe, also the greater costs of your criminal justice system probably add another 1% of GDP to that - so the gap is not really that big (and most of it can be explained by pensions).

But it was still doublethink, if there was a massive boost in demand that caused a large rise in employment then the costs of our welfare state would probably be reduced by the 15% needed to match US defence spending.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Any of the continents trying to invade the other would be preceeded by massive mobilisation of conscription armies and conversion of civil production to military on both sides. Comparing current military and industrial capabilites is not relevant.

The winner would be the side with the strongest combination of know-how, natural resources, manpower, determination and allies. And it would be a Phyrrus victory with WW1-scale casualties on both sides, followed by an eternal partisan war if one continent eventually manages to occupy the other. It would not be worth it, no matter how much mutual hatred we could whip up. I don't think, and don't hope, it would ever happen.

Totally correct.

[GePap]

According to the last figures I saw, with only an net increase accross the board of 58 billion european states could catch up to the US in general abilities, if not force size. On most techonological issues, the Europeans are not far behind: certainly in gorund forces they are equal in technology (as in, their tanks and amror personel carriers are as good as ours).

In the air, as far as airframes and such they are equal (heck, so are the russians). It becomes an issue of electronics, and there the Europeans could very easily catch up, since the US does not actually have any monopoly on complex computer systems- lets remember that the UK is a full partner in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter, that European states buy lots of US weapons, so forth.

At sea, the main difference is simply size: certainly the Europeans would have to spend trillions on shipbuilding, but they could do it if they wanted.

The big difference is in space, but the euros do have the tech to do it. In short, as el freako says, the Europeans, if they had the will, could catch up to the US in terms of military power within 20 years. Would it be expensive? Yes. But it could be done, period.

As for the troll, all the Euros have to do is get the Russkies to sacrifice themselves for the greater good and launch a full fledge nuclear first strike. Then they win, AND they suffer only from the environmental problems of a two sided nuclear exchange.

[el freako]

The main area where europe lags behind the US is in the logistical infrastructure to project power.

But then again we don't need to 'cos in almost any situation that arose the US would do the projecting for us (merely by following it's own self-interest).

What is interesting is how much the US relies on european support for it's logistical infrastructure - what would happen to the ability of the US to project it's power in north africa or the indian ocean if it lost the use of european-owned bases (in Spain and Italy for the former and the British owned Diego Garcia in the latter)

Europe is basically out of intenational military contests whilst we expand across our continent (in a replay of the US position in the 19th century).

But rest assured yanks, when your showdown comes with china we will come to your aid to tip the scales in your favour (and then I hope we won't be as insufferable in constantly going on about how europe 'saved' america - but human nature being what it is I doubt it )

[Theben]

cna't we all just get along?

Or nuke the fvck out of each other and get it over with.

[chequita guevara]

I don't wanna get along.